IMAGE  EVALUATION 
TEST  TARGET  (MT-3) 


// 


{./ 


^  .^. 


5' 


i^ 


^ 


,% 


^.^ 


^A^ 


4^ 


4^ 


% 


1.0 


I.I 


lti|21    125 

122  ^^    ■■■ 

IM  Itt   12.2 


UO 


IL25  i  1.4 


1^ 

11.6 


6" 


^ 


V 


'/ 


ScMioes 
Corporation 


^ 


a»  v;if  ?  MAIN  STRHT 
VV^')STM,N.V.  11SM 


CIHM/ICMH 

Microfiche 

Series. 


CIHIVI/ICIVIH 
Collection  de 
microfiches. 


Canadian  Instituta  for  Historical  IMicroraproductiona  /  Institut  Canadian  da  microraproductiona  liiatoriquaa 


Tachnical  and  Brsiinpraphic  Notaa/Notas  tachniquaa  at  bibliographiquaa 


Tha  Inatituta  haa  attamptad  to  obtain  tha  baat 
original  copy  availabia  for  filming.  Faaturaa  of  thia 
copy  which  may  ba  bibliographically  uniqua, 
which  may  altar  any  of  tha  imagaa  in  tha 
raproduction,  or  which  may  aigniflcantly  changa 
tha  uaual  mathod  of  filming,  ara  chackad  balow. 


D 


D 


D 


□ 


n 


Q 


Coloiirad  covara/ 
Couvartura  da  coulaur 


I      I    Covars  damagad/ 


Couvartura  andommagAa 


Covars  raatorad  and/or  laminatad/ 
Couvaitura  rastauria  at/ou  paiiiculAa 


I      I   Covar  titia  missing/ 


La  titra  da  couvartura  manqua 

Colourad  mapa/ 

Cartas  gAographiquas  an  coulaur 


□    Colourad  ink  (i.a.  othar  than  blua  or  black)/ 
Encra  da  coulaur  (i.e.  autra  qua  blaua  ou  noira) 

I     I   Colourad  plataa  and/or  illuatrationa/ 


Planchaa  at/ou  illusvrationa  an  coulaur 

Bound  with  othar  material/ 
RaliA  avac  d'autras  documents 

Tight  binding  may  cause  shadows  or  distortic  i 
along  interior  margin/ 

La  re  liure  serr6e  peut  cause,  de  I'ombre  ou  de  la 
diatortion  la  long  de  la  marge  intArieure 

Blank  leaves  added  during  restoration  may 
appear  within  the  text.  Whenever  possible,  these 
have  been  omitted  from  filming/ 
II  se  peut  que  certainaa  pages  blanches  ajouttes 
lors  d'une  restauration  apparaiaaent  dana  la  texte, 
mala,  iorsque  cela  Atait  possible,  ces  pages  n'ont 
paa  M  filmtes. 


Tl 
to 


L'Inatitut  a  microfilm*  la  mailleur  exemplaira 
qu'il  lui  a  M  possible  de  se  procurer.  Les  dAtails 
de  cet  exemplaire  qui  sent  peut-Atre  uniques  du 
point  de  vue  bibliographique,  qui  peuvent  modifier 
une  image  reproduite,  ou  qui  peuvent  exigei  une 
modification  dans  la  m^thoda  normale  de  filmage 
sont  indiquAs  ci-dessous. 


r~~\   Coloured  pages/ 


D 


Pages  de  couleur 

Pagea  damaged/ 
Pages  endommagias 

Pagea  restored  and/oi 

Pages  restaurAes  at/ou  pelliculAes 

Pagea  discoloured,  stained  or  foxe< 
Pagea  dAcolories,  tachatAes  ou  piquAas 

Pages  detached/ 
Pagea  iJAtachtes 

Showthroughy 
Tranaparence 

Quality  of  prir 

Qualit^  InAgaia  de  I'impreasion 

Includes  supplementary  materii 
Comprend  du  material  suppMmentaire 

Only  edition  available/ 
Seule  Edition  disponible 


I — I  Pagea  damaged/ 

I — I  Pagea  restored  and/or  laminated/ 

r~7]  Pagea  discoloured,  stained  or  foxed/ 

Fn  Pages  detached/ 

Fyl  Showthrough/ 

I     I  Quality  of  print  variea/ 

|~n  Includes  supplementary  material/ 

I — I  Only  edition  available/ 


Pegea  wholly  or  partially  obscured  by  erreta 
alips,  tissues,  etc..  have  been  ref limed  to 
enaure  the  best  possible  image/ 
Les  pages  totalement  ou  partiellement 
obscurcies  par  un  feuillet  d'errata,  une  pelure, 
etc..  ont  AtA  film^es  A  nouveau  de  fa? on  A 
obtenir  la  meilleure  image  possible. 


Tl 

P* 
o\ 
fil 


0 

b< 
til 
si 
ol 
fil 
si 

Ol 


Tl 
s» 
Tl 
w 

M 

di 

I 


Additional  comments:/ 
Commentaires  supplAmentaires; 


Soma  pagM  art  photorsproductkMM. 


This  item  is  filmed  at  the  reduction  ratio  checked  below/ 

Ce  document  est  filmi  au  taux  de  rMuetion  indiqu*  ci-deaaous. 


10X 

14X 

18X 

22X 

2SX 

30X 

v/ 

12X 


16X 


20X 


24X 


28X 


32X 


Th«  copy  film«d  h«r«  hM  b««n  raproducad  thanks 
to  tho  gonorotity  of: 

Ubrnry  of  tho  Public 
Archivos  of  Canada 


L'axamplaira  fllni4  fut  raproduit  grica  A  la 
giniroaitA  da: 

La  bibllothAqua  das  Archivas 
publiquas  du  Canada 


\ 


Tha  Imagaa  appaaring  hara  ara  tha  baat  quality 
poaaibia  conaidaring  tha  condition  and  lagibility 
of  tha  original  copy  and  in  kaaping  with  tha 
filming  contract  spacificationa. 


Laa  Imagas  suivantas  ont  At*  raprodultas  avac  la 
plus  grand  soin,  compta  tanu  da  la  condition  at 
da  la  nattatA  da  l'axamplaira  fllmA.  at  an 
conformltA  avac  las  conditions  du  contrat  da 
fllmaga. 


Original  copias  in  printad  papar  covars  ara  fiimad 
baginning  with  tha  front  covar  and  an«'!ng  on 
tha  last  paga  with  a  printad  or  illuatratad  impraa- 
slon,  or  tha  back  covar  whan  appropriata.  All 
othar  original  copiaa  ara  fiimad  iiaginnlng  on  tha 
first  paga  whh  a  printad  or  illuatratad  impraa- 
slon,  and  ariding  on  tha  last  paga  with  a  printad 
or  illuatratad  impraaaion. 


Tha  last  racordad  frama  on  aach  microf Icha 
shall  contain  tha  symbol  -^  (moaning  "CON- 
TINUED"), or  tha  symbol  ▼  (moaning  "END"), 
whichavar  appiias. 


I.as  axamplairaa  originaux  dont  la  couvartura  an 
papiar  aat  ImprimAa  sont  filmAs  an  commandant 
par  la  pramlar  plat  at  an  tarminant  salt  par  la 
darnlAra  paga  qui  comporta  una  amprainia 
d'impraaaion  ou  d'illustration.  solt  par  la  sacond 
plat,  aalon  la  caa.  Tous  laa  autras  axampialras 
originaux  sont  filmAs  an  commandant  par  la 
pramlAra  paga  qui  comporta  una  amprainta 
d'impraaaion  ou  d'illustration  at  an  tarminant  par 
la  rJarnlAra  paga  qui  comporta  una  talla 
amprainta. 

Un  daa  aymbolaa  suivants  apparattra  sur  la 
darnlAra  imaga  da  chaqua  microflcha,  salon  la 
caa:  la  aymbola  -^  signlfia  "A  SUiVRE",  la 
symbola  ▼  signlfia  "FIN". 


Mapa,  platas,  charts,  ate.,  may  ba  fiimad  at 
diffarant  raduction  ratioa.  Thoaa  too  larga  to  ba 
antiraiy  inciudad  in  ona  axpoaura  ara  fiimad 
baginning  in  tha  uppar  laft  liand  cornar,  laft  to 
right  and  top  to  bottom,  aa  many  framaa  aa 
raquirad.  Tha  following  diagrams  lllustrata  tha 
mathod: 


Lm  cartas,  planehas,  tablaaux.  ate,  pauvant  Atra 
filmAs  A  das  taux  da  rAduction  diff Arants. 
Loraqua  la  documant  ast  trop  grand  pour  Atra 
raproduit  an  un  aaul  clicliA,  ii  ast  fllmA  A  partir 
da  I'angla  supAriaur  gaucha,  da  gaucha  A  drolta, 
at  da  haut  an  baa,  an  pranant  la  nombra 
d'Imagas  nAcaaaaira.  Laa  diagrammas  suivants 
iliustrant  la  mAthoda. 


1 

2 

3 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

AN 


ANSWER 


TO 


IFAR  IN  DISGUISE; 


OR, 


R  E IVI A  R  K  S 


OFQN 


CDe  Beto  Doctrme  of  CnglanDj 

CONCERNING 

» 

NEUTIIAL  TRADE. 


V.  i 


'-  Illud  nattira  non  patiatui,  ut  aliorum  spoliis  nostras  faruUauv 
•«  ropias,  dpes,  au,^namus  :  et  unum  debeat  esse  omnibus  pvoposituia,  i '. 
♦«  eadeia  si  utilitas  unlustujusque  et  univeisaruin,  quum  si  .s  -'  .lUu^que 
«*rapiat,  dissolvitur  omnis  humana  oorisoitio."-  -cjcfiu-  vv  oratciie      ^, 


.^f. 


JVEW-YORK: 


PRINTED    BY    HOPKINS    AND    SEYMOUR, 

I'OR  I.  RILEY  cV  CO. 
And  Sold  by  1.  Riley  8c  Co.  No.  I,  City-Hotel.  Ncw-Vom;  Samuel  F.  Bradford,  Phil.i 
dJphia  ;  Anderson  &  Jeffries,  Baltimore  ;  Cottom  &  Stewart,  Alexandria ;  Seymour 
&  Woolhoi  ter,  Savaimah ;  Edmund  Morford,  Charleston  ;  Iiaa*  Beers  &  Co    and 
laatMe  Cooke  &  Co.  New-Haveu  S  Hudson  gt  Goodwin,  Harttord  ;  William  Wilkm 
son.  Providence  ;  Lewis  PvOus»ii>aniere,  Newport ;  Jolm  West,  Boston  ;  and  Dani" 
Johnson,  Portland 


Fehruarih  ISOG, 


v^u 


Diatrict  of  Mio-Yorky  ss> 

Be  it  remembered,  That  on  the  twenty-nipth  day  of 
Cl  s  )  •^^""^''y» '"  ^^^  thirtieth  year  of  the  Independence  of 
the  United  States  of  America,  IsA^r;  RiLKV,of  the  said 
District,  hath  deposited  in  this  office  the  Title  of  a  Book,  the 
right  whereof  he  claims  as  proprietor,  in  the  words  and  figure 
following,  to  wit  : 

"  An  Jnsiver  to  War  in  Disguise  ;  or^  Jicmarks  u/ion  the  new 
"  Doctrine  of  England^  concerning  A'eutral  Trade, 

"  Illud  natura  iiou  patiatur,  utalioruin  spoliis  nostras  facilitates,  copias, 
"  op»^s,  augeamus  :  et  uiium  debeat  esse  omnibus  propusitiim,  ut  eadeni 
'«  sit  utilitas  uniuscujusqae  et  universarum,  quam  si  ad  se  quisquc  rapiat, 
"  dioi-'  it  ".-orrnishumana'"onsortio." — cicEWiDE  oratore.  3," 

In  conformity  to  the  Act  of  the  Congress  of  the  United  States, 
entitled,  "  An  Act  for  the  encouragement  of  learning,  by  secur- 
"  ing  the  ''opies  of  Maps,  Charts,  and  Books,  to  the  authors  and 
"  proprietors  of  such  copies,  during  the  times  therein  mention- 
'<  ed  :"  And  also,  to  an  Act,  entitled,  "  An  Act  supplementary 
"  to  an  Act,  entitled,  "  An  Act  for  the  encouragement  of  leam- 
"  ing,  by  securing  the  Copies  of  Maps,  Charts,  and  Books,  to 
"  the  authors  and  proprietors  of  such  copies,  during  the  times 
"  therein  mentioned,  and  extending  the  benefits  thereof  to  the 
«  arts  of  Designing,  Engraving,  and  Etching,  historical  and 
"  other  prints." 

EDWARD  DUNSCOMB, 
Clerk  of  the  District  of  JVcvt-York. 


t 
h 


.  * 


;  '1'^ 


PREFACE. 


Those  who  ark  m  the  habit  of  approving  or  con 
demning,  morefrorn  regard  to  persons  than  to  things, 
wish  to  know  the  Author  before  they  read  a  book.  In 
the  hope  that  these  sheets  may  be  impartially  consi- 
dered, the  writer  wjll  not  affix  his  name.  He  will, 
hmcver,  to  obviate  iinfomided  objection,  so  far  grati- 
fy the  curious,  as  to  say,  that  he^is  not  a  Practitioiter 
qfthe  Law  ;  he  is  not  a  Merchant ;  he  has  no  interest 
in  Trades  he  holds  no  Office ;  ajid  has  no  connexion 
with  those  who  administer  the  Government. 


m 


■^>a-Mkrii>ki^k. 


pi 

tc 

11 

si 

.  8( 

le 

t 
I 
< 


» 


AN  ANSWER 


TO 


WJR  jy  DISGUISE,  &'€. 


The  Pamphlet,  entitled  "War  in  Disguise/*  on 
which  we  are  about  to  make  some  remarks,  is  the 
production  of  no  mean  ability.     We  have  been 
toId>that  it  was  written  by  direction  of  the  Eng- 
lish cabinet.     This,  however,  we  do  not  believe, 
since  it  shows  a  want  of  that   caution   and  re- 
.  serve,  which  usually  mark  the  compositions  of 
public  men  J  our  respect  also  for  the  British  mi- 
nistti,  will  not  permit  us  to  suppose  that,  even 
hastily  or  in  a  convivial  moment,  he  would  assent 
to  the  general  scope  and  tenor  of  this   work; 
much  less,  that  he  would  initiate  its  dangerous 
doctrine,  after  serious  thought  and  mature  delibe- 
ration.    "NVe  shall,  therefore,  treat  the  argument 
\vith  freedom,  unrestrained  by  any  of  that  defer- 
ence which  delicacy  would  impose,  if  we  believed 
ourselves  addressing,  even  at  second  hand,  the 
minister  of  a  great  monarch. 


C 


*.   >i 


•c 


IncfTcct,  tills  pamphlet  appears  to  be  written  m 
the  spirit  of  a  lawyer,  stinuilatcd  by  that  of 
a  merchant ;  and  the  autlior,  supporting  rather  a 
generous  client  than  a  deliberate  opinion,  in  the 
zeal  of  argument,  overleaps  the  bound  of  reason. 
Nevertheless,  though  we  arc  not  blind  to  defects, 
we  gladly  pay  our  tribute  of  applause  to  great 
part  of  his  work,  especially  to  that  which  shov.s, 
in  a  mannergCqually  clear  and  forcible,  tlie  mis- 
chiefs resulti,ng  from  what  is  called  the  neutral 
carrying  trade,  or  what  might  more  properly  be 
called,  the  covering  trade.  Wc  fully  agree  with 
him»  that  it  is  inconsistent  with  neutral  duties, 
and  eventually  hostile  to  neutral  rights;  that  it 
derogates  from  the  nati9nal  honour,  poisons  the 
public  morals,  and  is  injurious  alike  to  our  inter- 
est .and  reputation.  In  this  persuasion  we  be- 
lieve that,  to  restrain  it,  the  American  Govern- 
;  ment  will  honestly  and  heartily  concur  in  every 
,  measure  of  reason  and  justice.  We  acknow- 
ledge, with  .our  author,  the  power  of  France. 
And  though  we  shall  not  pretend  to  conceal  our 
'admiration  of  those  qualities  and  talents  which 
tnai'k  the  Emperor  Napoleon  as  the  first  man  of 
the  present  age,  we  shall  not  deny,  that  such 
^reat  power,  in  such  able  hands,  may  be  danger- 
ius  to  the  liberties  of  mankind.  We  are  thank- 
ful, therefore,  to  divine  Providence  that,  in  a  po- 
sition which  fortifies  the  sentiment  of  inexpiable 


Iiostility  by  the  double  motive  of  interest  and  ap- 
prehension, lie  lias  pliiccd  a  nation,  whose  ineal- 
culable  resources  enable  h<'r  to  display  her  valour 
in  every  <juarter  of  the  globe.  Whetlier  Ameri- 
ca should  join  in  this  arduous  eontest,  is  a  ques- 
tion to  be  decided  by  tliose  to  whom  she  has  in- 
trusted her  bigliest  concerns.  They  will  adopt 
such  measures  as  they  shall  deem  most  advisable, 
under  a  consideration  of  every  circumstance. 
And  if,  from  the  inrirrnity  incident  *o  man,  they 
should  })ursuc  a  line  of  conduct  which  may  (be- 
cause pacific)  appear  unwise  to  the  ministers  of 
his  Britannic  majesty,  that  conduct  cannot  justly 
be  made  the  cause  or  the  pretext  of  war.  In 
holding  out  a  menace,  our  author  has  not,  per- 
haps, considered  the  ungracious  appearance  it 
gives  to  his  argument.  Neither  has  he  duly  ap- 
preciated the  American  character.  The  blessing 
of  God  on  our  first  contest  in  arms,  made  this  na- 
tion sovereign,  free,  and  independent.  Our  citi- 
zens feel  their  honourable  condition,  and,  what- 
ever may  be  their  opinion  on  questions  of  nation- 
al policy,  will  firmly  support  the  national  rights. 
Our  government  must,  therefore,  be  permitted  to 
judge  for  itself.  No  minister,  however  splendid 
his  talents — no  prince,  however  great  his  power — 
must  dictate  to  the  President  of  the  United  States. 
We  may  condemn  his  measures,  but  we  respect 
his  authority,  because  we  respect  ourselves.     Let 


1 


li'' 


8 


s^ 


not  this  be  considered  as  a  false  or  fastidious  dis- 
play of  national  sentiment ;  neither  let  us  be 
judged  by  those  adventurers  who,  roaming  about 
in  pursuit  of  illicit  gain,  offer  their  conscience 
for  sale  at  every  market.  England  as  well  as 
America,  has  the  misfortune  to  produce  such 
men.  Her  achievements  in  war  have  not  secured 
her  cHgainst  the  scoffs  directed  at  her  pursuits  in 
trade.  But,  while  we  disdain  to  join  with  the 
profligate  Barrere  in  stigmatizing,  as  hucksters,  a 
gallant  nation,  we  feel  a  right  to  expect  a  recipro- 
cation of  candour  and  decencv. 

Having  thus,  in  a  way  which  the  occasion 
seemed  to  require,  discussed  some  preliminary 
matter,  we  shall  approach  the  argument;  and 
having  explicitly  avowed  our  opinion  respecting 
the  abuse  of  neutral  trade,  we  shall  as  explicitly 
declare,  that  we  consider  it  our  interest  to  carry 
the  British  doctrine  (on  that  subject)  as  far  as 
reason  and  justice  can,  in  any  manner,  }>ermit. 
The  geographical  position  of  the  United  States, 
while  it  enables  them  to  assail  with  peculiar  ad- 
vantage the  colonial  commerce  of  Europe,  con- 
fines them  in  a  great  degree  to  that  species  of 
hostility,  when  at  war  with  any  of  the  commer- 
cial powers.  To  extend  therefore  the  right  of 
capture,  by  limiting  neutral  rights,  should  l)e  a 
leading  feature  of  American  policy  ^  especially  as 
circumstances  resulting  from  the  same  position^ 


9 


■  ! 


must  so  operate  as  to  make  us,  when  neutral,  an 
exception  to  the  general  rule.  But  though  our 
political  and  mercantile  interests  concur  to  favour 
the  British  tenets,  we  must  not,  by  giving  them  an 
extravagant  extension,  transgress  the  bounds  of 
reason  and  justice.  For  we  fully  agree  with  the 
writer  before  us,  that  "  never  in  the  affairs  of  na- 
"  tions  was  solid  security  or  true  prosperity,  pur- 
"  chased  at  the  cost  of  virtuous  principle ;"  and 
we  request  that  this  maxim  may,  in  considering 
the  subject  now  before  us,  be  present  to  every 
mind,  and  impressed  on  every  heart. 

The  argument  being  levelled  at  America,  we 
shall  take  little  notice  of  instances  brought  from 
other  countries,  which  cannot  exist  here  ;  and  as 
little  shall  we  notice  American  cases  which  show 
that  some  corrupt  individuals  have  covered  as  neu- 
tral, by  false  papers  and  false  oaths,  the  property  of 
a  belligerent.  We  say,  to  the  adverse  belligerent, 
punish,  if  you  please,  by  cost  and  contiscation ; 
but  respect  the  principles  of  .Justice — punish  not 
one  for  the  crime  of  another — charge  not  on  all 
the  guilt  of  a  few  ; — neither,  reviving  the  purita- 
nical doctrine,  that  every  thing  is  permitted  to  the 
saints,  celebrate  in  Doctors'  Commons  your  own 
canonization. 

The  writer  of  ^Var  in  Disguise,  erects  his  fabric 
of  argument  on  what  he  calls  the  rule  of  the  ivar 
of  1756,  "  to  which  (says  he)  the  neutral  powers 

B 


i     »i: 


V\ 


I     •• 


1  '  ■ !  '■ 


,  fl 


ro 


"  have  all  assented,  in  point  of  principle,  by  sub- 
"  niitting  to  its  partial  application."  He  after- 
M^ards  tries  to  persuade  us  that,  considering  Bri- 
tain as  the  champion  of  the  liberties  of  mankind, 
we  ought,  in  aid  of  her  exertions,  to  submit  to  his 
doctrine.  But  to  urge  our  submission,  on  the 
ground  v)f  policy,  in  the  same  breath,  when  the 
subnjissiou  of  others  is  quoted  as  precedent  to  es- 
tablish the  controverted  principle,  is  presuming  a 
little  too  much  on  our  want  of  discernment. 
Should  we  admit,  for  argument's  sake,  that  a  neu- 
tral, weak  and  unarmed,  had  (from  motives  of  fear 
or  pretexts  of  policy)  submitted  to  the  outrage  of 
an  armed  and  powerful  belligerent ;  still  we 
should  deny  that  such  right  could  be  founded  on 
such  submission.  What !  does  a  wrong  unresist- 
ed become  a  right  ?  Can  a  momentary  circum- 
stance form  a  permanent  rule  ?  Will  the  silence 
of  one  prove  the  assent  of  all  ?  Or,  shall  the  tame- 
ness  of  pusillr.nimity  fetter  the  conscience  and 
conduct  of  the  brave?  Britain,  beware  !  On  your 
Channel's  southern  shore  stands  a  power  menacing 
and  gigantic,  who  can  show  proofs  of  submission 
more  general,  to  claims  not  more  extravagant. 

Thus  much  it  seemed  meet  to  say,  on  a  suppo- 
sition that  the  rule  had  been  assented  to  in  the 
manner  above  stated.  But,  in  fact,  it  has  not. 
The  Dutch,  for  the  confiscation  of  whose  proper- 
ty a  royal  order  was  issued  in  1758,  of  a  very  ex- 


11 


traordinary  nature,  clamoured  loudly,  and  mnde 
strong  diplomatic  representations.  The  practice 
(now  called  a  rule)  was  complained  of;  the  prin- 
ciple on  which  it  was  founded,  was  denied  by  that 
nation,  against  whom  it  was  applied;  and  nei- 
ther that  nation,  nor  any  other,  has  evt  r  assented 
to  it — and  much  less  to  the  conclusions  from  it, 
which  are  now  stated.  To  suppose  tlie  claim  set 
up  in  1758,  by  the  British  government,  was  any 
new  principle  in  the  law  of  nations,  would  alone 
destroy  it ;  for  there  can  be  no  new  principle  in 
that  science.  Whether  it  was  a  just  conclusion 
from  the  old  and  acknowledged  principles,  will  be 
considered  in  its  place.  But  whether  true  or 
false,  is  immaterial  as  to  other  conclusions  from 
the  same  premises.  If  these  be  just,  they  want 
no  incidental  support,  and  if  unjust,  no  incidental 
support  can  avail. 

Our  author,  after  citing  his  favourite  doctrine 
in  the  words  used  by  Sir  William  Scott,  in  Novem- 
ber 1799,  says,"  such  were  the  principles  of  a 
"  rule  first  practically  established  by  the  supreme 
"  tribunal  of  prize,  during  the  war  of  17<56,  only 
**  because  the  case  which  demanded  its  applica- 
"  tion  then  first  occurred ;  and  it  ought  to  be 
"  added,  that  the  decisions  of  that  tribimal  at  the 
same  period,  were  justly  celebrated  throughout 
Europe,  for  their  equity  and  wisdom" — to  prove 
which  he  boldly  cites  Blackstone,  Montesquieu, 


« 


<c 


■  i!' 


i  'II 


I '"I 


t   .  'J 


V 


12 


and  Vattel.     But  licre,  instead  of  the  caution  of  a 
statesman,  we  find  (to  use  a  gentle  term)  the  ad- 
dress of  an  advocate.      By   recurring  to   Black- 
stone,  we  find  that  (after  having  mentioned  that, 
in  1748,  the  Judges  of  ihe  common  Law  Courts 
were  added  as  members  to  the  Court  of  Appeals 
in  prize  causes,)  he  adds,  "  such  an  addition  be- 
"  came  wholly  unnecessary  in  the  course  of  the 
"  war  which  commenced  in  1756,  since,  during 
"  the  whole  of  that  war,  the  Commission  of  Ap- 
"  peals  was  regularly  attended,  and  all  its  deci- 
"  sions  conducted  by  a  Judge  whose  masterly  ac- 
"  quaintance  ivilh  the  Law  of  Nations^  was  known 
"  and  revered  by  every  state  in  Europe."     That 
his  talents  were  known  and  revered,  is  one  thing : 
that  his  decisions  were  celebrated  for  their  equity 
and  wisdom,  is  another,  and  a  very  different  thing. 
Blackstone,  to  prove  the  opinion  entertained  of 
the  Judge's  knowledge^  quotes  Montesquieu  and 
Vattel.      These  do   indeed  applaud   the   answer 
made  in  1153,  by  the  English  Court,  to  the  reasons 
assigned  by  his  Prussian  Majesty,  for  not  paying 
the  Silesia  Loan.     But  this  was  three  years  an- 
tecedent to   the   war  of    1756.      Montesquieu, 
writing  from  Paris  in  1753,  says  of  that  State  pa- 
per— "  AVe  consider  it  here   as   unanswerable." 
But  what  has  this  to  do  with  the  decrees  of  a 
Court  made  in  1758  "i    The  sprightly  author  of 
the  Spirit  of  Laws,  though  bred  in  the  Roman 


Si    ' 


13 


faith,  was  not  so  mnrh  a  Catholic  as  to  believe  in 
the  eiTicacy  of  Inrlnlgences  ;  still  less  did  he  pre- 
tend to  I  ontifical  power,  and  sanctify  beforehand 
by  the  merit  of  a  writer,  in  17.53,  the  decisions  he 
might  make  as  a  Judge  in  IT^iS;  decisions  too, 
which,  (if  predicated  on  what  is  now  said  to  have 
been  the  rule)  were  made  in  the  very  teeth  of 
that  argument  which  Montesquieu  had  so  much 
approved.  For  the  answer  abovementioned  of 
the  English  Court,  lays  down  in  the  outset,  and 
supports  in  the  sequel,  as  an  uncontrovertible 
maxim,  "  Tl»at  whatever  is  the  property  of  an 
**  enemy,  may  be  acquired  by  capture  at  sea,  but 
"  thai  Ike  properly  of  aj'riend  cannot  be  taken j  pro- 
"  videdhe  preserves  his  neutrality ^ 

The  words  of  Sir  William  Scott,  above  referred 
to,  are,  "  The  general  rule  is,  that  the  neutral  has 
a  right  to  carry  on,  in  time  of  war,  his  accus- 
tomed trade,  to  the  utmost  extent  of  which  that 
"  accustomed  trade  is  capable.  Very  different  is 
"  the  case  of  a  trade  which  the  neutral  has  never 
"  possessed,  which  he  holds  by  no  title  of  use  and 
"  habit  in  times  of  peace ;  and  which,  in  fact,  can 
"  obiain  in  war,  by  no  other  title,  than  by  the 
"  success  of  the  one  belligerent  against  the  other  j 
"  and  at  the  expense  of  that  very  belligerent 
"  under  whose  yuccess  he  sets  up  his  title ;  and 
"  such  I  take  to  be  the  colonial  trade,  generally 
"  speaking. 


(C 


« 


M 


'  I 


U 


!    I? 

y 

ill 


«( 


"  What  is  the  colonial  trade,  generally  speak- 
ing ?    It  is  a  trade  generally  shut  up  to  the  ex- 
**  elusive  use  of  the   mother  country,  to  which 
"  the  colony  belongs,  and  this  to  a  double  use — the 
**  one  that  of  supplying  a  market  for  the  consump- 
**  tion  of  native  commodities,  and  the  other,  of 
**  furnishing  to  the  mother  country  the  peculiar 
commodities  of  the  colonial  regions:    to  these 
two  purposes  of  the  mother  country,  the  gene- 
ral policy  respecting  colonies  belonging  to  the 
states  of  Europe,  has  restricted  tliem. 
"  With  respect  to  other  countries,  generally 
speaking,  the  colony  has  no  existence.     It  is 
possible  that  indirectly,  and  remotely,  such  co- 
lonies may  affect  the  commerce  of  otiier  coun- 
tries.   The  manufactures  of  Germany,  may  lind 
"  their  way  into  Jamaica  or  Guadaloupe,  and  the 
"  sugar  of  Jamaica  or  Guadaloupe,  ihto  the  inte- 
"  rior  parts  of  Germany ;    but  as  to  any  direct 
"  communication  or  advantages  resulting  there- 
"  from,  Guadaloupe  and  Jamaica  are  no  more  to 
"  Germany,  than  if  they  were  settlements  in  the 
"  mountains  of  the  moon.     To  commercial  pur- 
"  poses  they  are  not  in  the  same  planet.     If  they 
"  were  annihilated,  it  would  make  no  chasm   in 
"  the  commercial  map  of  Hamburg.     If  Guada- 
"  loupe  could  be  sunk  in  the  sea,  by  the  effect  of 
**  hostility  at  the  beginning  of  a  war,  it  would  be 


« 


<c 


« 


« 


« 


t( 


ft 


€f 


15 


tt 


it 


if 


<( 


(C 


"  a  mighty  loss  to  France,  as  Jamaica  would  be  to 
"  England,  if  it  could  be  made  the  subject  of  a 
"  similar  act  of  violence;  but  such  events  would 
"  find  their  way  into  the  chronicles  of  other  coun- 
tries, as  events  of  disinterested  curiosity,  and 
nothing  more. 

"  Upon  the  interruption  of  a  war,  what  are  the 
rights  of  belligerents  and  neutrals  respectively, 
regarding  such  places  ?  It  is  an  indubitable  right 
of  the  belligerent  to  possess  himself  of  such 
"  places,  as  of  any  other  possession  of  his  enemy. 
"  This  is  his  common  right ;  but  he  has  the  cer- 
"  tain  means  of  carrying  such  a  right  into  effect, 
"  if  he  has  a  decided  superiority  at  sea.  Such 
colonies  are  dependent  for  their  existence,  as 
colonies,  on  foreign  supplies  j  if  they  cannot 
"  be  supplied  and  defended,  they  must  fall  to  the 
belligerent  of  course:  and  if  the  belligerent 
chooses  to  apply  his  means  to  such  an  object, 
what  right  has  a  third  party,  perfectly  neutral, 
to  step  in  and  prevent  the  execution  .?  No  exist- 
ing interest  of  his,  is  affected  by  it ;  he  can  liave 
"  no  right  to  apply  to  his  own  use  the  beneficial 
"  consequences  of  the  mere  act  of  the  belligerent, 
"  and  to  say,  "  True  it  is  you  have,  by  foroe  of 
arms,  forced  such  places  out  of  the  exclusive 
possession  of  the  enemy,  but  I  will  share  the 
"  benefit  of  the  conquest,  and  by  sliaring  its  be- 


te 


(( 


<( 


« 


t( 


ii 


tt 


tt 


tt 


\i 


16 


C( 

*( 

ti 
(( 
t( 
(t 
It 
i( 
<' 
it 
tt 
it 
it 
tt 
it 

it 
it 
it 
it 
ti 
it 
it 
tt 
tt 
tt 
tt 


nefits  prevent  its  progress.  You  have  in  effect, 
and  by  lawful  means,  turned  the  enemy  out  of 
the  possession  which  he  had  exclusively  main- 
tained against  the  whole  world,  aiul  with  whom 
we  had  never  presumed  to  interfere ;  but  we 
will  interpose  to  prevent  h  absolute  surrender, 
by  the  means  of  that  very  opening,  which  the 
prevalence  of  your  arms  alone  has  otl'ected : — 
supplies  shall  be  sent,  and  their  products  shall 
be  exported  :  you  have  lawfully  destroyed  his 
monopoly,  but  you  shall  not  be  ])ermitled  to 
possess  it  yourself  J  we  insist  to  share  the  fruits 
of  your  victories;  and  your  blood  and  treasure 
have  been  expended,  not  for  your  own  inlerest, 
but  for  the  common  benefit  of  otiiers." 
"  Upon  these  grounds,  it  cannot  be  contended 
to  be  a  right  of  neutrals,  to  intrude  into  a  com- 
merce which  had  been  uniforndy  shut  against 
them,  and  which  is  now  forced  open  merely  by 
the  pressure  of  war :  for  w  hen  the  enemy,  un- 
der an  entire  inability  to  supply  his  colonies, 
and  to  export  their  products,  affects  to  open 
them  to  neutrals,  it  is  not  his  will,  but  his  ne- 
cessity that  changes  the  system :  that  change 
is  the  direct  and  unavoidable  consequence  of  the 
compulsion  of  war ;  it  is  a  measure  not  of  French 
councils,  but  of  British  force." 
Such  is  the  language  of  that  learned  and  pro- 


i!v 


17 


ibnnd  civilian,  for  whom  wo  sincerely  fcrl,  and 
frankly  acknowledge,  a  high  respect.  But  we  as 
frankly  declare^  that  if  disposed  to  surrencUn-  our 
judgment  to  authority,  we  should  seek  the  privnlCy 
notthe  judicial  opinions  of  Sir  William  Scott.  His 
uncommon  ability  and  honourable  temper  might 
command  our  confidence,  in  whatever  he  should  say 
as  a  gentleman  ;  but  he  will  himself  acknowledge, 
that  he  is  not  entitled  to  the  same  credit  when 
speaking  as  a  judge.  The  r(>ason  is  obvious : 
Prize  Courts  are  bound,  from  their  nature  and 
office,  to  decree  according  to  the  orders  of  their 
Sovereign.  His  right  to  establish,  to  alter,  and  to 
abrogate,  the  rules  and  principles  of  their  deci- 
sions, is  a  necessary  incident  to  his  power  of 
Peace  and  AVar.  For  it  would  be  absurd  and  dan- 
gerous, that  prize  courts,  by  condeniniiigwhatthe 
Sovereign  had  directed  them  to  acquit,  should  in- 
volve him  in  war  ;  or  should  elude  his  declaration 
of  war,  by  refusing  to  condemn  prizes  taken  from 
his  enemy.  The  business  of  a  judge,  in  prize 
courts,  is  to  weigh  evidence  so  as  to  ascertain 
facts  ',  to  compare  facts  with  the  principles  which 
are  to  govern  his  decision ;  to  decree  according 
to  the  law  of  nations,  when  not  otherwise  direct- 
ed j  and  to  assign  such  reasons  for  his  decrees,  as 
may  best  consist  with  the  honour  and  dignity  of 
his  royal  master.     That  no  man  can  better  per- 

c 


I  I 


I! 


!\ 


18 

Jorni,  than  Sir  William  Scott,  these  various,  ardu- 
ous, and  important  duties,  will  appear  from  the 
opinion  just  cited,  in  which  every  word  is  weigh- 
ed. And  when  we  come  to  consider  tlie  reasons 
and  motives  assigned  in  the  pamphlet,  to  support 
the  same  opinion,  we  think  it  will  appear  that  the 
.ludgc  has  shown  no  less  wisdom  in  his  silence, 
than  by  his  expressions. 

He  hegins, "  The  general  rule  is," We  pause 

to  put  a  (juestion  :  The  general  rule  of  what  ?  We 
answer,  of  I  he  King's  Prize  Court.  Sir  William 
Scott  would  not  commit  his  reputation,  by  saying 
it  was  a  rule  of  the  law  of  nations  j  for  he  knew 
that  no  such  rule  could  be  found  in  any  good  wri- 
ter— and  had  he  said  it  was  a  rule  of  the  prize 
court,  it  would  have  been  the  indirect  acknow- 
ledgment, that  it  is  not  a  rule  of  the  law  of  na- 
tions. But  afterwards,  in  the  same  argumentative 
decr«e,  he  says,  "  much  argument  has  been  em- 
"  ployed  on  grounds  of  commercial  analogy — this 
"  trade  is  allowed — that  trade  is  not  more  injuri- 
"  ous — Why  not  that  to  be  considered  as  equal- 
"  ly  permitted  ?  The  obvious  answer  is,  that  the 
"  frue  rule  to  this  Court  is  the  text  of  the  Instruc- 
'*  tions.''  This,  if  we  understand  it,  is  a  full  con- 
cession of  the  point  in  controversy ;  for  the  maxim, 
wliere  the  reason  is  the  same,  the  law  is  the  same,  is 
peculiarly  applicable  to  questions  of  this  sort  j 


19 


but  Sir  William  docs  not  attempt,  by  distinguish- 
ing between  th('  eases,  to  show  a  difterence  in  the 
reason  to  justify  a  <lilVerent  decision.  Me  refers 
to  the  instructions  as  an  olwious  answer  to  argu- 
ments from  analogy.  In  other  words,  he  says 
the  cases  are  indeed  similar,  of  course  tlie  reason 
is  the  same,  but  the  sentence  must  be  different, 
because  those  are  tlecided  by  the  law  of  nations 
and  these  by  the  instructions.  This  appears  to 
lis  conclusive  ;  but  we  will  examine  what  is  said 
to  justify  the  instructions. 

"  The  general  rule  (says  Sir  William  Scott)  is, 
"  that  the  neutral  has  a  right  to  carry  on  in  time 
"  of  war  ius  accustovied  trade f  to  the  utmost  ex- 
"  tent  of  which  that  accustomed  trade  is  capable." 
The  generosity  with  which  he  is  kindly  pleased  to 
grant  this  indefuiite  extension  of  accustomed 
trade,  is  not  a  mere  soothing  compliment.  He 
knew  the  objections  to  his  defniition  of  accustom- 
ed trade,  which  he  slily  confounds  with  accustom- 
ed places  of  trade.  He  knew  that  trade  might  be, 
and  actually  is,  limited  not  only  as  to  the  place, 
but  as  to  the  commodities :  he  knew  that  the  latter 
is  not  unfrequently  the  more  important  restraint ; 
and  he  knew  the  objections  to  his  rule  were  in- 
surmountable, had  he  stopped  at  the  first  part  of 
the  phrase,  confining  the  neutral,  thereby,  in  time 
of  war,  to  his  accustomed  trade.     By  substituting. 


10 

III  tlic  course  of  liis  arRumciil,  the  itort  for  the 
trade,  ho  conU'niplattMl  thi'  exclusion  of  iir-.itralM 
from  tliat  coinmcrcr  whicli  his  ^ovenuiunt  wish 
to  pn  vc'iit,  ])(>rniithii^:at  th<-  saiiic  time  that  \vhi(  h 
thcv  ui>h  to  cncoiira^'i'.  M'lutlR'r  he  iias  sue- 
cci'drd,  \\\\\  apptar  hy  applying  liis  tioctriiics  to 
facts.  lake  some  eoinmodity  which  Kngland 
wauls,  Spanish  wool  for  instance,  an  articU;  ne- 
cessary in  the  manufacture  of  superhne  cloth. 
This  can,  hy  her  navigation  act,  he  imported 
only  in  British  orSpanish  ships.  In  /  i  me  of  peace  t 
an  American  may  indeed  go  from  Cadiz  to  Lon 
don,  hut  he  cannot  take  with  him  an  article  of  the 
growth,  ])r()duce,  or  manufacture,  of  Spain,  in 
time  of  war,  however,  it  hecomes  necessary  to  re- 
lax that  rigorous  system,  and  permit  the  importa- 
tion of  articles  piohihited  in  time  of  peace.  Sir 
William,  therefore,  would  give  to  the  accustomed 
trade  every  extent  of  which  it  is  capahle.  But  is 
it  more  an  accustomed  trade  of  the  neutral  to  carry 
wool  fr(m»  Cadiz  to  London,  than  sugar  from  the 
Kavanna  to  Hamhurgh?  If  in  the  one  case,  he 
had  been  permitted  to  carry  a  single  bale,  or  in 
the  other,  a  single  chest,  the  idea  of  extending 
his  accustomed  trade  might  apply  ;  provided  al- 
ways, that,  in  fair  argument,  an  occasional  per- 
mission could  be  admitted  as  proof  of  a  general 
practice,  when  indeed  (being  only  an  exception) 


tl 


it  proves  the  contrary  practiro  to  be  general.  But 
does  England  permit  tlie  neutral,  in  time  olpcaer, 
to  Import  even  that  single  bale  of  wool  ?  She  docs 
not.  May  we  not  «ay  then,  in  Sir  AVilTuun's  own 
lani^ua^c,  tliat,  so  far  as  r(\G;ar<ls  our  peac(;  trade 
in  wool  hctwecn  Cadi/  and  London,  it  is  as  if 
these  citi<'s  were  "  in  the  mountains  of  t!ie  rioon," 
that  to  the  purposes  of  this  eomni  ree,  "  they  arc 
not  in  the  same  planet,"  &c.  &c.  And  if  this 
trade  in  wool  does  not  in  pca(!c  exist,  as  it  cer- 
tainly does  not;  if  it  he  not,  as  oertaiidy  it  is  not, 
our  accustomed  trade,  sure  no  extension  of  our  ac- 
customed trade  can  reach  the  carriage  of  wool. 

Sir  William's  hgures  of  earthquakes  and  moun- 
tains must  not  hr  considered  as  mere  th)wcrs  of 
School-hoy  rhetoric.  They  are  used  by  a  man  of 
sense,  to  dazzle  the  fancy  and  take  off  the  atten- 
tion from  locfical  disquisition,  by  the  amusements 
of  poetry  and  eloquence.  But  if  a  French  or  Dutch 
privateer  should  capture  a  neutral  takinj^  wool 
from  Cadiz  to  London,  might  not  the  French  or 
Dutch  Judge  say  (adopting  the  rule  and  parody- 
ing the  language  of  Sir  William  Scott,)  "  what  is 
"  this  wool  trade,  generally  speaking  ?  It  is  a  trade 
"  generally  shut  up  against  others  to  the  exclu- 
"  sive  use  of  England,  and  this  to  a  double  use ; 
"  the  one  that  of  supplying  a  market  for  English 
"  commodities,  and  the  other  that  of  furnishing 


'  1' 


<l'; 

k 


n 


"  England  with  that  peculiar  commodity  of  the 
"  Spanish  regions."  Hv^  might  indeed  go  a  little 
farther,  and,  as  an  additional  cause  of  condemna- 
tion, say  the  inhibition  of  that  trade,  in  time  of 
peace,  forms  part  of  the  general  system  called  the 
Navigation  Laws,  which  Britain  conside.  ^  as  the 
basis  of  her  na^  al  power,  and  has  strictly  adhered  to 
for  more  than  two  centuries.  Here  then  we  take 
our  first  stand.  We  deny  that  municipal  regula- 
tions established  in  peace,  can  in  any  wise  limit 
the  public  rights  of  neutrals,  in  time  of  war; 
averring)  and  undertaking  to  prove  by  numerous 
examples,  familiar  to  men  conversrxno  with  the 
subject,  that  neutrals  have  ever  carried  on  in  war 
a  commerce  interdicted  in  peace  ;  and  that  it  ne- 
vev  has  been  alleged,  or  even  imagined,  that  in  so 
doiiig  they  were  liable  to  hindrance  or  molesta- 
tion, much  less  to  the  seizure  and  forfeiture  of 
ships  and  goods.  Wc  deny  that  strangers  accjuire 
rights  against  each  other  by  the  domestic  regula- 
tions of  commerce  or  police,  which  a  sovereign 
may  think  proper  to  establish.  A  prohibition  by 
England  to  import  brandy  from  France,  in  any 
other  than  French  or  British  bottoms,  can,  nei- 
ther in  peace  nor  in  war,  justify  a  Spaniard  in 
taking  a  Dane  bound  to  London  with  brandy. 
We  insist  that  a  limitation,  as  to  the  place  where 
commodities  may  be  laden,  is  of  no  greater  im- 


aa 


he 
;le 
a- 
of 
he 
he 
to 


port,  than  a  limitation  as  to  the  commodities 
themselves.  If  there  be  any  essential  difference 
which  can  bear  on  the  question,  let  it  be  shown : 
We  see  none,  and  appeal  to  the  common  sense  of 
mankind.  We  insist,  therefore,  that  the  rights  of 
a  neutral  are  as  perfect  when  the  limitation  of 
place  is  removed,  as  when  the  limitation  of  com- 
modities is  abrogated.  His  trade  is  in  both  cases 
alike;  a  new  and  unaccustomed  trade.  The  re- 
straints which  France  and  Spain  impose  on  the 
commerce  of  their  colonies,  give  no  rights  to  Bri- 
tain; still  less  can  she  derive  rights  from  the 
abrogation  of  those  restraints.  She  Ipretends  no 
j^ight  to  make  prize  of  an  American  carrying  on, 
in  time  of  peace,  a  contraband  (and  therefore  un- 
lawful) trade  with  Martinique — how  then  can  she 
pretend  a  right  to  make  prize  of  the  same  Ame- 
rican carrying  on  in  time  of  war,  a  permitted  (and 
therefore  a  lawful)  trade  with  that  colony  ?  Will 
the  British  government  allow  that  America  can 
rightfully  make  prize  of  a  British  smuggler  on 
the  Spanish  Mair,  taken  in  the  breach  of  Spanish 
law ;  or  on  the  coast  of  Devonshire,  taken  in  the 
breach  of  British  law  ?  Would  she  not  truly  con- 
tend, that  we  acquire  no  such  right  by  the  laws 
of  England  or  of  Spain  ?  If,  then,  a  third  party 
acqiiires  no  right  against  those  who  trade  in  de- 
fiance of  the  municipal  law,  how  can  he  acquire 


24 


t 

if;! 


right  against  those  who  trade  in  conformity  to 
the  municipal  law  ?  Su])po.se  France  and  Spain 
should  revive  the  colonial  monopoly,  a  relaxation 
of  which  is  said  to  justify  captures;  would  Bri- 
tain have  a  right  to  take  the  smuggler  in  time  of 
war,  Mhom  slie  could  not  touch  in  time  of  peace  ? 
And  if  not,  hy  vvliat  perversion  of  reason  and  con- 
science can  it  be  pretended,  that  a  trade  is  inno- 
cent only  while  it  is  criminal,  and  criminal  the 
moment  it  becomes  innocent  ? 

After  the  display  of  imagery,  by  which  Sir  Wil- 
liam has  skilfully  masked  his  advance  from  the 
premises  towards  tlie  conclusion,  he  states  it  as  an 
indubitable  right  of  the  belligerent  to  take  his 
enemy's  colony.  This  no  one  will  deny.  But 
when  he  says,  he  has  the  certain  means  of  carry- 
ing such  right  into  effect,  if  he  has  a  decided  su- 
periority at  sea,  as  it  is  not  a  legal  question,  we 
may,  without  any  want  of  deference  to  his  opinion 
as  a  judge,  take  leave  to.difler  with  him.  We  en- 
treat him  to  recollect  that,  with  every  superiority 
at  sea  his  heart  could  wish,  Britain  has  neither 
taken,  nor  is  like  to  take,  the  French  and  Spanish 
colonies.  Whatever  may  be  her  naval  power, 
therefore,  we  must  wait  till  time  shall  disclose  the 
judgment  of  a  higher  tribunal  than  the  British 
prize  court,  before  we  determine  what  she  can 
take.     But  we  readily  acknowledge  her  right  to 


25 


'* 


try  what  can  be  clone  b}^  attack  or  blockade,  and 
equally  acknowledge  that  neutrals  have  no  right 
to  step  in  and  prevent  the  effect  of  either.     The 
law  of  blockades  is  well  known,  but  the  present 
question  does  not  turn  on  that  law.     Whenever 
Great-Britain,  by  force  or  otherwise,  shall  conjjuer 
a  colony  (which  we  sin^pose  to  be  meant  by  turn- 
ing the  enemy  "  out  of  the  exclusive  possession,") 
we  shall  not  dispute,   or  attempt  to  share,   tiie 
rights  she  may  have  acquired;  but  we  must  be 
permitted  to  observe,  that  attack  and  conquest  are 
definite  words,   of  distinct  meaning,  which  must 
not  be  confounded.      It  would  be  ridiculous  to 
pretend  that  a  Serjeant  of  Grenadiers,  by  firing 
his  musket  at  a  fortress,  and  stiling  the  bravado 
an  attack,  had  acquired  the  rights  oi conquest.  The 
learned  judge  will  permit  us  also  to  observe,  that 
as,  in  special  regard  to  his  situation,  we  do  not 
blame,  so  we  presume  that  he,  as  an  accurate  ci- 
vilian, will  not  justify,  the  loose  terms  of"  forcing 
"  a  place  out  of  the  exclusive  possession  of  iiie 
"  enemy  ;"  or  the  application  of  such  loose  terms, 
as  a  ground  for  questioning  the  rights  of  that  ene- 
my in  his  own  country — a  country  which  he  has 
held  for  centuries,  and  continues  to  hold.     In 
"bort,  we  must  insist  on  accurate  language  in  the 
discussion  of  national  affairs.     If,  by  forcing  a 
place  out  of  exclusive  possession,  conquest  be 

D 


;    I, 


t 


»l    u 


If 


Li 


S6 

meant,  let  it  be  so  expressed ;  and  what  remains 
will  be  a  question  of  fact.  If  conquest  be  not 
meant,  the  terms  (as  applied)  mean  nothing.  If 
France  does  not  exclusivebf  possess  Martinique, 
let  us  know  who  is  the  joint  tenant.  If  it  be  Bri- 
tain, let  her  perform  some  act  of  ownership,  issue 
some  order,  promulgate  some  law,  for  the  govern- 
ment or  administration,  which  will  not  be  tretited 
with  contempt  there,  and  with  ridicule  every 
where. 

In  pursuing  his  arguments,  Sir  William  puts  in 
our  mouths,  as  addressed  to  England,  this  lan- 
guage :  "  True  it  is,  you  have,  by  force  of  arms, 
"  forced  such  places  out  of  the  exclusive  posses- 
"  sion  of  the  enemy;  but  we  will  share  the  benefit 
"  of  the  conquest,  and  by  sharing  its  benefits, 
"  prevent  its  progress  ;  you  have  in  elfect,  and  by 
"  lawful  means,  turned  the  enemy  out  Oi  his  pos- 
"  session  which  he  had  exclusively  maintained 
"  against  the  whole  world,  and  with  whom  we 
*'  never  presumed  to  interfere,  but  we  will  inter- 
*'  pose  to  prevent  his  absolute  surrender,"  &c. 
Indeed,  Sir  M'illiam,  we  never  have  used,  and  ne- 
ver shall  use,  such  language.  You  Englishmen 
can  take  liberties  with  your  mother  tongue,  which 
you  may  not  permit  to  others.  When  youi  Hi- 
bernian neighbours  hazard  any  thing  like  a  con- 
tradiction in  terms,  you  call  it  a  Bull.     What  you 


27 


would  say  of  us  Yankees,  on  a  similar  occasion, 
wc  know  not;  but  since  it  might  expose  us  to  ri- 
dicule, we  shall  not  speak  of  your  enemy  as  being 
turned  out  of  possession  before  he  has  surrender- 
ed. For  the  rest,  we  never  presumed  to  interfere 
with  the  French  possession  of  Paris  or  St.  Pierre, 
any  more  than  with  the  English  possession  of 
Lon<lon  or  Kingston ;  neither  shall  we  presume 
to  interfere  with  the  belligerents  in  the  conquests 
they  may  make  from  each  otlier. 

Sir  Wdliam  supposes  us  to  say  further:  "  You 
''  have  lawfully  destroyed  his  monopoly,  but  you 
"  shall  not  be  permitted  to  possess  it  yourself." 
We  make  neither  of  these  assertions,  much  less 
both  of  them  together  i  not  indeed  readily  under- 
standing what  is  meant  by  the  possession  of  a 
thing  destroyed.  If  it  be  permitted  to  address 
England  in  our  own  word  ^,  we  say : — Great  and 
generous  nation !  Proud  of  our  common  descent, 
we  rejoice  that  you  so  nobly  sustain  the  reputa- 
tion of  our  valiant  forefathers :  speaking  the  same 
language,  educated  in  the  same  habits,  the  same 
blood  in  our  veins,  the  same  love  of  liberty  in  our 
hearts,  we  sympathize  in  your  sentiments,  and 
exult  in  your  glory :  wo  know  you  will  neither 
crouch  under  menace,  nor  be  dismayed  by  dan- 
ger :  take  care  that  you  be  not  misled  by  flattery 
and  intoxicated  by   success :    listen   to  the  Ian- 


.1 


1  J' 

i    !; 


■:m 


^ 


I 


% 


guage  of  ti-'itli  in  the  voice  of  a  brother :  be  per- 
suaded that  you  can  no  more  destroy  your  ene- 
my's colonial  niono[)oly,  than  he  can  destroy 
vour  navit'ation  act :  the  necessity  of  war  leads 
both  you  and  your  enemy  to  relax  the  system 
which  each  considers  it  for  his  interest  to  preserve 
in  peace :  we  fmd  our  advantage  in  carrying  0!i 
the  trade  which  each  of  you  permits,  for  his  own 
advantage :  and  we  entreat  you  to  consider,  that  if 
you  exclude  us  from  a  trade  with  the  colonies  of 
your  enemy,  because  "  it  is  not  his  will  but  his 
"  necessity,  that  changes  his  system,"  your  ene- 
my may,  on  like  ground,  exclude  us  from  trading 
with  you,  in  articles  which  your  necessities  re- 
quire— ^V'hy  then  drive  us  to  desperate  conclu- 
sions, by  insisting  on  principles,  neither  tenable 
in  argument,  nor  useful  in  practice? 

In  truth,  if  the  colonial  trade  be  inhibited  to  the 
neutral,  "  because  it  is  a  direct  and  unavoidable 
"  consequence  of  the  compulsion  of  war,"  every 
extension  of  his  trade  with  a  belligerent  must  be 
equally  inhibited  ;  for  it  cannot  be  doubted  that 
such  extension  is  a  consequence  of  the  war.  We 
shall  not  waste  time  to  refute  distinctions  between 
consequences  direct  and  indirect,  avoidable  and 
unavoidable.  As  it  will  not  be  pretended  that  a 
neutral  trade  with  her  colonies  is  indispensably  ne- 
'cessary  to  France,  so  it  cannot  be  called  an  una- 


■■{ 


',1 


^ 
^ 


voidable  consequence  of  the  war.  The  dilTerent 
shades  of  convenience  are  considerations  proper 
for  the  belligerent  sovereign,  in  which  the  neutral 
has  no  concern,  and  about  which  he  ought  not  to 
give  an  opinion. 

Before  we  leave  the  argument  of  Sir  William 
Scott,  let  us,  however,  make  one  remark.  He  cer- 
tainly did  not  mean  to  justify  the  French  Empe- 
ror, should  he  prohibit  the  neutral  commerce  with 
Britain  :  yet  if  such  an  idea  had  entered  the  Em- 
peror's mind,  might  he  not,  at  the  head  of  his  ar- 
my near  Boulogne,  have  proclaimed,  "  that  it  wfis 
"  his  indubitableright  to  possess  himself  of  Grcat- 
"  Britain  :  that  he  had  the  certain  means  of  car- 
**  rying  that  right  into  eft'ect,"  &c.  &c.  and  would 
the  British  government  consider  a  conclusion, 
drawn  from  those  premises,  that  nobody  should 
trade  zvith  Englafid,  as  worthy  of  serious  refuta- 
tion? Yet,  where  is  the  difference,  (inreabon)  be- 
tween the  island  of  Britain  threatened  by  France, 
aiul  the  island  of  Martinicpie  threatened  by  En- 
gland ?  If  threats  could  acquire  rights,  the  great- 
est bragger  would  be  the  richest  man.  We  think 
too  highly  of  England  to  believe  she  would  rest 
her  claims  on  the  ground  of  gasconade.  But  if 
we  turn  from  the  threat  to  consider  the  danger, 
we  appeal  to  the  world,  whether  the  danger  of 
Martinique  was  greater  than  the  danger  of  Bri- 


i^! 


)'!'! 


I;  • 


I 


M" 


30 


tain.  Nay,  vvc  appeal  to  the  testimony  of  Rritaift 
herself,  and  produce  before  the  tribunal  of  Europe 
her  nen;oeiations  with  every  court,  soliciting  aid 
to  ward  olV  the  danger  to  whieli  she  was  exposed, 
and  the  consecjuent  danger  to  all,  if  she  should  be 
conquered. 

From  what  has  betMi  said,  it  will,  we  believe, 
appear  that  the  rule  laid  down  by  Sir  William 
Scott,  is  unknown  to  the  law  of  nations :  that  his 
arguments  against  extending  neutral  trade  to  the 
colonies  and  colonial  productions  of  a  belligerent, 
apply  with  equal  force  against  every  other  exten- 
sion of  that  trade :  that  these  arguments,  found- 
ed only  on  the  power  of  a  belligerent,  will  equal- 
ly justify  every  other  pretension  of  power — and, 
therefore,  that,  resolving  justice  into  force,  they 
are  equally  subversive  of  moral  principle,  and  of 
those  maxims  of  national  law  which  have  hitherto 
been  held  sacred  bv  the  civilized  societies  of  man. 

Before  we  proceed  any  further  with  the  author 
of  War  in  Disgui.se,we  must  take  a  moment  to  con- 
sider from  whence  a  belligerent  derives  his  right 
to  mak''  prize  of  a  neutral ;  believing  that  in  its 
source  we  shall  fmd  its  limitation.  It  is,  we  con- 
fess, a  too  frequent  practice  to  destroy  the  human 
race,  merely  to  gratify  the  passion  or  promote 
the  interest  of  a  destroyer.  But  we  believe  no 
tyrant  ever  yet,  in  his  wildest  abuse  of  power,  as- 


,;i^ 


;5l 


. 


sertt'd  a  right  to  waste,  at  Ins  pleasure,  the  lives 
and  lortunes  of  mankind.  It  has  not,  tliat  we  rc- 
collcet,  been  gftavely  stated  to  the  world,  as  a  rule 
of  law,  that  the  proptirty  of  an  innocent  man  may 
justly  be  taken  from  him  whenever  it  is  conve- 
nient to  his  powerful  neighbour.  Pirates  indeed 
have  practised  according  to  that  principle,  but 
even  pirates  never  published  it  as  a  code  of  ma- 
ritime law. 

It  results  from  the  state  of  war,  that  the  proper- 
ty of  an  enemy  may  be  acquired  by  capture  at 
sea,  but  the  property  of  a  friend  cannot  be  taken. 
If,  however,  the  neutral  divests  himself  of  his  pro- 
per character,  and  takes  part  in  the  war,  he  may 
justly  be  treated  according  to  the  character  he 
has  assumed.  His  property  then  becomes  law- 
ful prize.  He  might  as  well  serve  in  the  enemy's 
fleet  or  army,  and,  when  made  prisoner,  claim  his 
neutral  privilege,  as  claim  that  privilege  for  his 
goods  when  employed  in  the  war.  If  therefore 
he  furnishes  a  belligerent  with  those  means  and 
implements  of  destruction,  which,  under  the  ge- 
neral term  of  contraband,  are  variously  designat- 
ed in  the  several  treaties  by  Avhich  it  has  been  de- 
fnie<l ;  or  if,  Avhen  a  belligerent  has  blockaded  a 
town  or  place,  he  should  attempt  to  introduce 
succour  or  subsistence,  the  property  is  lawful 
prize.     In  both  cases  he  was  engaged  in  direct 


;  -I* 


■!f 


52 

hostilitv.  But  thp«o  casrs  rxcoptod,  tl'rro  is  no 
ripht  of  cayiture.  A  belligerent  cannot  rightfully 
complain  of  the  remote  and  indirect  consequen- 
ces of  a  lawful  act.  Neither  can  he  impute  as 
guilt  to  a  neutral,  acts  in  themselves  lawful,  and 
which,  having  no  direct  tendency  to  injure  the 
belligerent,  imply  no  hostile  intention  of  the  neu- 
tral. To  make  this  (if  possible)  a  little  more  clear, 
take  the  following  instance:  If  a  neutral  should 
let  out  his  ship  to  transport  soldiers  for  one  of  thr 
belligerents,  this  would  mark  so  distinctly  his  hos- 
tile spirit,  as  to  justify  capture  and  condemnation 
bv  the  other  belligerent.  But  suppose  a  neutral  ship 
should  meet  a  transport  of  the  belligerent,  sinking 
from  stress  of  weather,  and  rescue  the  troops  from 
impending  destruction  ;  would  this  expose  the 
ship  to  condemnation  ?  Surely  not.  Nature  revolts 
at  the  idea:  and  a  belligerent  who  should  make 
prize  under  such  circumstances,  and  justify  the 
decree  because  of  the  conse<|uential  injury  he 
might  sustain  from  the  salvation  of  his  drowning 
foe,  would  render  himself  the  object  of  general 
execration.  The  right,  then,  of  capturijig  neutrals, 
does  notarise  either  from  advantages  the  bellige- 
rent may  gain,  or  from  injuries  he  might  otherwise 
sustain.  No:  it  arises,  and  in  reason  can  only 
arise,  from  the  guill  of  the  neutral  himself. 
Where  there  is  no  crime  there  can  be  no  punish- 


di) 


no 


J 


nuMir,  and  wlicr**  there  is  no  otVencc  there  can  be 
no  iort'eilnre.  Misirabhj  indeed  must  he  the  con- 
dition of  man,  iftliose  who  are  invested  with  pow- 
er can  |)rcscril)r  their  convenience  as  a  rule  for 
the  conduct  of  otiiers;  measure  out  rights  and  du- 
ties !)y  their  particular  interest;  hind  up  the  con- 
science ol'such  as  cannot  resist  to  tlie  conclusions 
of  their  own  reasonin*;,  however  false,  aiul  at  their 
.sovereign  u  ill  and  ph-asure  chanije  innocence  to 
guilt  !  Principles  like  these  are  lit  only  for  beasts 
of  prey,  and  lor  those  enemies  of  the  human  race 
who  may,  like  beasts  of  prey,  be  lawfully  hunted 
down  and  destroyed. 

In  this  place,  though  not  absolutely  necessary  to 
our  argument,  yet  not  wholly  impertinent,  we  take 
leave  to  say  one  word, on  asuhject  which  was  agi- 
tated with  no  little  spirit  in  the  British  pailiament, 
during  the  French  revolution.  While  the  idea  of 
making  war  again:>t  principles  was  opposed  by 
much  argument,  and  by  more  ridicule,  on  one 
side,  it  was  supported  on  the  other  less  vigorously 
than  perhaps  it  would  have  been,  had  the  public 
mind  been  prepared  for  the  proper  impressions. 
So  long  as  opinions  and  principles  areconfmedto 
the  bosoms  of  speculati\  e  men,  magistrates  have 
no  right  to  interfere,  and  much  less  foreign  na- 
tions. When  such  opinions  and  principles,  car- 
ried into  practice,  (endanger  the  peace  or  morals 


I 

.♦1 


19 


■**! 


''I 


94 

of  society,  it  becomes  a  <luty  in  tlie  magistrate  to 
repress  and  punish.  Still,  however,  the  concern 
is  of  a  private  an<l  municipal  nature.  Hut  when 
a  cfovennncnt  jivows  ami  propaii^ates  principle's 
hostile  to  the  pcact^  an<l  satrty  of  others,  nei^h- 
Ijourinu^  lujtions  should  put  tiicinsch  t\s  in  a  posture 
ordifcnce;  and  if  such  government,  rei;ardless  of 
their  representations,  carry  these  principles  into 
practice,  it  is  no  longer  their  mere  right — it  is 
their  houndcn  duty — to  wage  war  and  destroy  the 
principles,  l»y  destroying  those  wiio  avow  them, 
and  act  agreeably  to  their  dictates.  No  matter 
where,  or  how,  or  by  whom,  such  princi[)les  arc 
pronndgated  :  no  matter  whether  in  French  or  in 
English,  by  a  Nobleman  or  a  Sans-Culotte :  it  is 
the  duty  of  all  nations  to  join  for  the  purpose  of 
suppressing  doctrines  hostile  to  mankind.  In 
this  faith,  we  proceed  to  consider  what  i\\c  writer 
of  AVar  in  Disguise  has  alleged,  in  support  of  his 
supposed  rule,  and  of  the  conclusions  he  would 
draw  from  it,  to  cll'e(;t  the  destruction  of  our  com- 
merce. 

In  the  first  place,  then,  we  contend  that  the  Bri- 
tish Courts  themselves  have  repeatedly  declared, 
by  necessary  implication,  that  there  is  no  such 
rule  in  the  law  of  nations.  One  word,  however, 
as  to  the  rule  itself:  Enemy's  property  taken  at 
sea  on  board  the  ship  of  a  friend,  is  lawful  prize. 


'K ; 


36 


IJut  the  cMciny  may  (oiu-ciil  \\'\h  proprrty  !iii«!<r  u 
iK-itliul  a))|)C'tiraii('c  ;  ainl  tli(- |niiit|>lili-t  iicioR- us 
(li'tails  hoino  of  many  coiitrivuiiccs  ulilcli  tlic  '^q- 
nius  of  tijiM'c  lias  (U'viscfl  i'or  thai  purpose.     It  is 
tlu'  pros  iuct-  of  Atlmiialiy  Courts  to  iu\(  sti;^^atc 
tli'v'  quiMion  ol"  property,  aud  ilcl'cal,  if  tlicy  can, 
such  coiurivancL's.     'I'o  this  illccl  tlii-y  justly  pre- 
siniK'  cviTV  tiling'  in  favour  of  tlu'  captor  ;  litrausc 
the  neutral,   if  liouest,  has  sullieieul   proof  in   his 
power;  whereas  the  captor  is,  from  the  nature  of 
tliini:;: ,  in  a  less  favourable  condition.     Presump- 
tions, according  to  the  circumstavux's  on  which 
they  arise,  have  ddVerent  degrees  of  force,  and 
iiiay  be  stronu;  enough  to  carry  conviction  against 
din'ct   testimony.     Still  a  coint,  nolwith.standing 
such   conviction,   will   not   decree  in  the  face  of 
evidence.     The  neutial  claim  nuiy  become  a  sub- 
ject of  diplomatic  d  scu.-sion,  and  a  decree  against 
evidence  would  iiardly   be  supported  by  the  go- 
vt;! lunenl  un<ler  whose    authority  it    was   made. 
But  a  mnnerous  class  of  cases  may  exist,  in  which 
the  bclli-'crent  shall  see  himself  continuallv  and 
evidently  the  du[)e  of  fi ami  and  pirjury.     I'nder 
these  circumstances,  it  is  com[)etent  for  him  to  es- 
tablish rules,  by  foice  of  which  such  cases  shall 
be  decided  according  to  the  fact,  without  regard 
to  the  testimony.     He  will  in  conse((uence  issue 
an  order  brocd  enough  to  embrace  his  object ; 
and  his  courts  being  bound  to  decree  in  conformi- 


■^^ 


r 


■I 


t 


■J 


i 


,^6 


ty,  the  matter  bcromos  a  quostion  between  him 
and  the  neutral  sovereign.  If  this  inst  shoiihl  in- 
sist, the  heiligerent  must  eitiicr  recede,  or  take 
the  alterni*  ve  of  war.  But  it  is  to  he  preumed 
tliat  the  neuter,  convinced,  ])y  a  fair  representa- 
tion of  facts,  that  his  subjects  have  frauchdeu'ly 
covered  the  property  of  an  enemy,  will  asseiU  to 
the  measure  of  the  helligereTit.  And  if  he  does, 
other  nations  ought  not  to  interfere,  even  though 
bound  by  treaty  to  support  the  !ieuler:  because 
he  is  the  best  judge  of  what  concerns  his  own  ho- 
nour, as  well  us  of  the  measures  best  suited  to  his 
interest.  But  as  thev  cannot  riurhtfuUv  intert'ore, 
so  they  cannot  be  bound  by  the  assumption  of 
one  party,  or  submission  of  the  other  ;  neither 
can  their  silence  be  considered  as  an  acqui- 
escence, nnich  less  can  it  be  construed  into  an 
assent. 

From  what  lirs  been  said,  it  appears,  that  a 
rule,  made  under  peculir.r  circumstances,  for  the 
direction  of  prize  courts,  though  apparently  at  va- 
riance, may  substa  itialiy  accord  with  national 
law  ;  seeing  that  the  object  of  it  is  only  to  make 
prize  of  the  property  of  an  enemy.  This  appears 
to  have  been  the  course  of  reasoning  adopted  by 
Great-Britain,  in  the  war  of  IT-^G.  The  Dutch 
carried  to  France,  produce  of  French  colonies, 
the  propert}'  of  French  sulyects.  Whatever  may 
have  been  the  api)ea  auce,  such  was  the  unques- 


I'y 


[ 


37 

tionnl'lo  fact ;  and  ccrta-nly  this  property  was 
lawful  pi  izo,  by  the  hiw  of  nations.  But  the  Dutch 
claimed,  under  a  treaty  of  near  a  hundred  years' 
standing,  the  right  to  secure  the  goods  of  an  ene- 
my against  capture,  by  virtue  of  their  neutral 
flag.  Proof,  tlierelbre,  that  tiie  cargoes  wcr*; 
French  property,  was  not  suHicient  to  nuikethem 
good  prize,  when  claimed  by  the  Dutch  in  right 
of  their  treaty  ;  v\neiefore  it  became  necessary  to 
strike  at  the  treaty  itself  The  arguments  on  this 
part  of  the  subject,  to  show  that  such  cases  were 
or  weie  not  i^ontemplated  by  ihe  treaty,  r;e  fo- 
reign to  our  inquiry.  Whatever  may  have  been 
the  preponderance  of  argument,  it  is  an  historical 
fact,  that  those  who  tlien  swayed  the  British  (;oun- 
cils,  declared  all  these  cargoes  to  be  lawful  prize 
of  war,  and  ordered  the  admiralty  courts  to  con- 
demn them.  They  were  accordingly  condemned; 
and  when  tlie  StPtes  General  complained,  the 
British  minister,  (to  cut  a  knot  he  could  not  untie) 
directed  Sir  Joseph  Yorke  to  declare  that  his  Ma- 
jeshj  could  not  get  oit  of  the  way  zvith  safety  if  neu- 
trals assumed  a  right  of  carrying  on  a  trade  zvith 
the  King^s  enemies,  which  ivas  not  allowed  them  in 
i i me tf  peace.  Thus  we  see  that  a  measure,  w liich 
(even  if  reconcileable  to  the  law  of  nations)  was  a 
direct  violation  of  positive  compact,  is  justified  by 
thepleaof /ztTf.w///.  The  rule  (or,  to  speak  correct- 
ly, the  practice)  of  the  seven  years'  war,  being 


Ii- 


n. : 


38 

(licrrforc  i\  inoasiirc  of  necessity,  can  never  be  ap- 
plied to  orrlinary  cases;  even  against  the  party 
whose  weakness  liail  submittetl.  To  tleduee  ctMi- 
scqnences  from  it  now,  is  as  logical  as  to  conclude, 
that  he  who  has  once  been  acquitteil  tor  killing  a 
man  in  self-defence,  has  a  riglit  to  kill  every  man 
he  meets. 

Having  thus  endeavoured  to  sh.ow  how  far  the 
practice  of  England,  in  tlie  seven  years'  war,  might 
liave  been  supported  by  principUs  of  naiional 
Jaw,  had  it  not  been  contrary  to  express  stipula- 
tions ;  let  us  see  whether  the  British  courts  have 
considered  it  as  part  of  that  law.  The  next  war 
in  which  England  was  engaged  was  tlu'  war  of  our 
Independence,  and  there  (no  instructions  lijcn  ex- 
isting to  the  contrary)  the  Admiralty  courts  regu- 
larly accjaillc'l  neutrals  taken  under  the  cneum- 
stances  which,  in  the  j. receding  \\ar,  had  been 
followed  by  condemnation.  Indeed,  their  decrees 
respecting  Dutch  ships  were  strictly  conformed  to 
the  treaty  of  1()()3,  which  had  been  h/uken  on  the 
ground  of  ncvcssihj  in  the  war  of  17«5d;  but,  the 
necessity  no  longer  existing,  hud  levivedin  1/78, 
with  original  vigour.  Evidently  then  the  British 
prizecourts  considered  the  deciL^ions  of  the  preced- 
ing war,  as  resting  solely  on  the  King's  special 
order,  and  that,  not  l)eing  derived  from  tl?e  law 
of  nations,  they  were  of  no  authority  in  cases  which 
arose  after  that  order  had  ceased  to  operate. 


i 


T 


'>^ 


39 

In  the  course  of  last  war,  three  diiTerent  instruc- 
tions on  this  subject  were  given  by  liis  Britannic 
majesty,  to  his  ships  of  war  and  privateers.  The 
fu'st,  dated  Nov.  1793,  in  the  spirit  of  those  issu- 
ed in  th(!  seven  years'  war,  directed  them  "  to  stop 
"  and  tietain  for  lawful  adjudication,  all  vessels 
"  la<ien  with  goods  the  produce  of  any  French 
"  colony,  or  carrying  j)rovisions  or  other  sup- 
"  plies  for  the  use  of  any  such  colony."  The  se- 
cond, of  Jan.  1794,  directed  them,  to  seize 
"  such  vessels  as  were  laden  with  goods  the  pro- 
"  duce  of  the  French  Wc^. -India  islands,  and 
"coming  directly  from  any  port  of  the  said  isl- 
*'  ands  to  Europe,'"  Finally,  the  third,  of  Jan. 
1798,  directed  them  to  bring  in  for  lawful  adju- 
dication, all  "  vessels  laden  with  the  produce  of 
"  any  island  or  settlement  of  France,  Spain,  or 
"  Holland,  and  coming  diredlij  from  any  port  of 
*'  ♦he  said  islands  or  settlements,  to  any  port  in  Eu- 
"  rope,  not  being  a  port  of  his  kingdom  or  of  the 
'  country  to  wltlch  the  vessel,  being  neutral, 
*  fV  aid  belong."  The  courts  conformed  their 
conduct  (at  each  successive  period)  to  the  instruc- 
tions thus  given ;  condemning  only  what  fell 
within  their  direct  and  evident  meaning.  Hence 
it  is  evident,  that  they  considered  those  instruc- 
tions as  infringing  the  rights  which  belong  to 
neutrals,  by  the  law  of  nations,  and  that  the  neutral 
riglit  took  effect,  when  the  limitation  was  with- 


i'l 


■■ 


40 


I! 


11!; 


drawn:  for  in  neither  of  these  instruetions  was  it 
declared,  that  vessels  not  within  the  description 
of  tliose  the  ships  of  war  were  directed  to  seize, 
should  not  be  taken.  This  was  unnecessary  :  all 
such  were  ac(|uitted  of  course.  The  prize  courts, 
therefore,  spoke  to  neutrals  (by  their  decrees) 
this  clear  and  distinct  language  :  We  acknowledge 
that,  by  the  law  of  nations,  you  are  entitled  to  the 
prohibited  .mmerce,  and  should  not  hesitate  to 
restore  your  c.  red  property,  but  we  are  bound 
6j/  the  text  of  the  King's  instructions  ;  where  they  do 
not  apply,  we  shall  restore,  as  we  did  during  the 
American  war;  and  as  soon,  and  as  far,  as  the 
instructions  may  be  withdrawn,  so  soon  and  so 
far  we  will  conform  our  decrees  to  the  law  of  na- 
tions. 

The  author  of  War  in  Disguise,  feeling  the  force 
of  this  conclusion,  endeavours  to  obviate  it.  Af- 
ter acknowledging  that  the  royal  instructions  be- 
come law,  when  promulgated,  he  adds,  their 
force  in  the  prize  courts  will  not  be  disputed, 
except  that  if  a  royal  order  could  be  supposed  to 
militate  plainly  against  the  rights  of  neutral 
subjects,  as  founded  on  the  acknowledged  law 
of  nations,  the  judge,  it  may  be  contended ,  ought 
not  to  yield  obedience  j  but  when  the  sovereign 
only  interposes  to  remit  such  belligerent  rights 
as  he  might  lawfully  enforce,  there  can  be  no 
room  for  any   such  question."     He  then   as- 


(( 


« 


(t 


it 


(C 


it 


(C 


«c 


\  I     i 


T 


41 

Slimes  the  thing  to  bo  proved,  viz    that  the  prac- 
tice of  the  seven  years'  war,  which  the  jrovcrn- 
nient  itself  had  defended  on  the  t^n'ound  of  neces- 
sity, was  founded  on  tlie  law  of  nations,  and  en- 
deavours to  show  that  the  instructions  of  179 't  and 
1798,  were  merely  remissions  of  the  belligerent 
right.     Those  v.  ho  wish  to  see  his  argument,  may 
turn  to  the  book,  for  we  shall  not  spend  time  to 
refute  what  is  palpably  unfounded.     He  may,  in- 
deed,  if  he  pleases,  contend  that  judges  are  not 
bound  to  obey,  for  every  thing  may  be  conlendedy 
but  the  contrary  has  been  adjudi^ed.     It  has,  in 
the  strong  and  pointed  terms  of  Sir  William  Scott, 
])cen  adjudged,  that  the  text  of  the  instrnctions  is 
the  true  rule  of  a  prize  court.     But,  notwithstand- 
ing this  writer's  attempt  to  reason  on  possibilities, 
against  facts,  he  is  obliged  to  acknowledge,  that 
vessels  and  cargoes  captured  and  condemned  sub- 
sequently to  the  instruction  of  1793,  and  previously 
to  the  instruction  of  1794,  were  restored  by  the  su- 
preme tribunal,  although  within  the  letter  and 
meaning  of  the  former  instruction.     In  so  doing, 
says  he,  they  may  be  supposed  to  have  departed 
from  the  rule  of  the  war  of  1756.     True  :  it  may 
be  contended,  and  it  may  be  supposed.     But  on 
what  other  supposition  could  the  supreme  tribu- 
nal restore  ?     If  the  captor's  claim  was  founded 
on  public  law,  merely  promulgated  by  the  royal 

F 


HH 


mp 


42 


■■■\ 


•f! 


a  if 

.dii 


if 


if 


instructions  of  1793,  and  allc^rwards  limited  by 
the  royal  bounty  in  1794,  his  right  accruing  in 
the  interim  was  perfect.  To  deprive  him  of  that 
perfect  right,  was  an  act  of  injustice  and  tyranny, 
which  cannot  be  excused  on  any  principle,  even 
of  policy ;  for  though  political  considerations  might 
induce  the  government  to  make  compensation  out 
of  the  pul)lic  treasury  to  a  favoured  neutral,  the 
captor  was  entitled  to  his  laivful  prize.  A  differ- 
ent course  was  pursued.  The  court  of  appeals 
restored  the  prize ;  and  therefore  not  to  a.  favoured, 
but  an  injuredy  neutral ;  for  courts  are  the  organs 
oijustice^  not  hounUj^  and  the  captors  (or  at  least 
.some  of  them)  received  compensation  from  the 
public  treasury.  "  All  captors  (says  our  author) 
"  whose  disapfwintment  would  have  been  attended 
"  with  actual  loss,  had  reason  to  be  satisfied  with 
"  the  national  liberality  and  justice."  From  the 
conduct  of  the  British  government,  then,  this 
plain  language  is  clearly  to  be  inferred  :  The  in- 
structions of  1793,  conformable  to  a  practice  in 
the  seven  years'  war,  were  an  infringement  of  neu- 
tral right,  and  gave  to  cruisers  more  than  they 
were  entitled  to  by  the  law  of  nations ;  conse- 
quently, more  than  they  could  reasonably  expect 
or  rightfully  claim.  As  soon  as  the  instructions 
are  withdrawn,  the  unquestionable  riglit  of  the 
neutral  must  be  acknowledged.  The  captor, 
whose  claim  was  grounded  on  favour,  not  right, 


43 


I'y 


t.'annot  justly  complain.  But  vvliore  ho  has  incur- 
red actual  loss,  let  him  be  compensated.  With- 
out a  tedious  examination  of  cases  cited  by  our 
author,  it  is  sufticient  to  observe,  that  they  turn, 
in  general,  on  the  usual  ([uestion,  whether  the 
property  be  that  of  a  neutral,  or  the  covered  pro- 
perty of  an  enemy  ?  Double  papers,  false  papers, 
colourable  pretexts,  and  the  like,  are  all  evidence 
of  the  latter ;  and,  therefore,  just  cause  of  condem- 
nation. But  let  us  suppose  that  not  only  one  case, 
but  one  hundred  cases,  could  be  adduced  to 
.show,  that  property  of  innocent  men  has  been 
condemned  by  British  judges,  acting  under  Bri- 
ti.sh  instructions  :  we  ask,  can  the  multiplication 
of  instances  justify,  does  it  not  rather  aggravate, 
the  wrong  ? 

The  charge  against  officers  in  the  American 
customs,  as  lending  the  aid  of  government  to  the 
commission  of  fraud,  ought  not  to  have  been  light- 
ly made.  The  author  will  find,  on  examination, 
that  they  act  in  mere  obedience  to  the  law,  which 
has  no  view  to  fraud.  The  usual  course  of  our 
trade  has  been  to  bond  the  duty  and  cancel  the 
bond,  on  payment  of  a  small  part,  when  the 
goods  are  exported.  If  the  duties  had  been  paid, 
in  the  first  instance,  and  repaid  in  the  second,  the 
case  would  not  have  been  materially  altered.  It 
is  not  reasonable  to  expect  that  custom  house  of- 


ni 


11 


44 


I  ■ 


^1 


ficcrsof  a  neutral  country,  sliould  go  out  of  ilirir 
way  to  insert  unusual  expressions  in  the  clear- 
ances they  give ;  especially  when  those  expres- 
sions would  1)«.'  of  no  use  to  li;  ir  fellow-citizens, 
l)ut  merely  serve  as  a  pretext  for  condenming 
their  property.  Is  it  just,  is  it  decent,  to  insinuate 
against  men  in  high  public  trust,  a  charge  of  abet- 
ting fraud,  because  they  will  not  encourage  plun- 
der? 

The  author  has  laboured  to  show  what  is  self- 
evident,  thai  the  frequent  recurrence  of  a  suspi- 
cious circumstance  tends  to  strengthen  suspicion. 
But  when,  to  elucidate  a  position  so  clear,  he 
likens  neutrals  to  pick-pockets,  we  cannot  consi- 
der it  as  a  happy  allusion.  Neither  can  we  admit 
that  an  illustration  is  an  argument.  And  when, 
from  that  self-evident  position,  he  attempts  to  show 
that  tlie  frequent  recurrence  of  circumstances,  na- 
turally incident  to  fair  transactions,  gives  ground 
to  suspect  fraud ;  we  not  only  differ  from  him,  but 
contend,  on  the  contrary,  that  a  suspicion  of  fraud 
woidd  more  naturally  arise  from  the  detect  of 
those  circumstances. 

As  little  can  vvc  subscribe  to  his  assertion,  that 
the  shipment  of  colonial  produce  to  Europe,  by 
the  importer,  is  a  proof  that  he  imported  with  in- 
tention to  make  that  shipment ;  inasmuch  as  Eu- 
rope is  the  best  market.     Merchants  aver  that,  in 


45 


ilisiaiit  voyapfcs,  the  best  market  can  only  ho 
known  by  events  ;  and  that  the  Aineriean  nuukct 
is  infhu  nfH'd  hy  that  of  Kuro[)('.  huh'ed,  it  ap- 
pears to  lis  (piite  natnral,  tliat  the  jirice  oi'export- 
ed  artieh  s  shonhl  be  governed  by  a  view  to  tlie  priec 
bkely  to  prevail,  at  their  arrival  iii  the  eountry  to 
vvhieh  they  arc  sent.  It  is  eipially  natural  that 
men  of  sanguine  temper,  counting  on  high  mar- 
kets, should  be  disappointed,  to  tlieir  loss.  And 
it  is  notorious  that  many  were  ruined  in  America 
<luring  the  last  war,  by  shipping  West-India  pro- 
duce to  Europe.  Their  imprudent  speculations 
raised  prices  luue  at  first,  and  afterwards  the  loss 
they  sustained,  together  with  numerous  bank- 
ruptcies in  the  principal  port  of  Germany,  reduced 
prices  below  the  reasonable  standard.  In  that 
state  of  things,  merchants  who  had  imported  with 
a  view  to  the  high  price,  rather  than  submit  to 
loss  by  the  decline,  sent  on  their  goods  to  Europe. 
Let  any  well  informed  merchant  in  the  city  of 
London  be  asked,  whether  this  is  not  a  true  state 
of  facts.  And  let  any  honest  man  declare,  whe- 
ther the  frequency  of  such  adventures,  under  such 
circumstances,  conveys  to  his  mind  a  suspicion 
of  fraud.  This  we  say,  on  the  supposition  that 
our  merchants  had  not  a  right  to  import  with  a 
a  view  to  exportation ;  which  we  by  no  means 
concede.     Neither  will  we  admit  that  measures 


4 


I 


46 

taken  to  conceal  a  lawful  intention,  for  the  [nu*- 
pose  of  (hiding  huvless  power,  im])eacli  ttie  in- 
tegrity of  those  whose  weakness  iuis  no  other 
resource  than  conceahnent.  Shall  it  bt;  contend- 
ed that  because  a  prudent  man  riding  near  Lon- 
don conceals  his  ])nrse  and  watch,  the  first  high- 
way-man he  meets  has  ii  right  to  take  them  away  ? 
Our  author  has  shown,  we  think,  in  a  satisfacto- 
ry manner,  that  an  American  merchant  can  (if  so 
disposed)  furnish  any  evidence  prize  courts  may 
ask,  to  prove  such  intention  as  they  may  prescribe; 
and  we  draw  from  his  demonstration  this  clear 
corollary  :  that  it  is  equally  useless  and  olfensivc 
to  abandon  the  clear  and  simple  principles  of 
public  law,  for  the  sake  of  these  loose  and  un- 
founded notions.  Has  it  been  duly  considered, 
that  the  inquiry  into  a  merchant's  intention,  push- 
ed to  the  extent  now  contended  for,  is  a  violation 
of  our  sovereignty  ?  Has  it  been  duly  considered 
that  the  property,  when  once  brought  within  our 
dominion,  is  as  completely  our  own,  as  if  it  had 
been  of  our  own  growth  and  manufacture  ?  Has  it 
been  duly  considered  that,  even  if  acquired  in 
contraband  trade,  the  inquiry  cannot  properly 
be  made  after  goods  have  reached  our  ports  ?  It 
has  been  admitted  that,  from  the  time  a  ship 
leaves,  and  until  she  returns  to  the  ports  of  her 
Sovereign,  belligerents  have  a  right  (notwithstand- 


J  :ll 


47 


ing  any  inttTmcdiatc  entries,  sales,  or  disposi- 
liuns  ol"  the  cargo,  in  tlie  ports  of  other  powers,) 
to  consider  it  as  one  unfmished  voyage,  and  to 
make  prize,  if,  in  any  part  of  that  voyage,  she 
has  viohited  the  laws  of  war.  If  the  belligerent 
may  go  on  and  follow  her  after  slie  has  again 
left  the  ])ort  of  her  Sovereign,  as  if  still  engaged 
in  an  unfmished  voyage,  when  is  the  voyage  to 
end  r  Is  it  to  last  as  long  as  the  ship  ?  Must  our 
government— -—but  we  forbear,  for  we  are  the 
advocates  of  peace. 

We  come  now  to  that  part  of  the  work  in  which 
it  is  proposed  that  Britain  should  capture  neutrals 
in  the  two-fold  view  of  avoiding  an  inconvenience 
and  gaining  an  advantage.  The  sum  of  what  is  said 
to  that  etfect,  may  be  comprised  in  these  few 
words :  my  interest  is  reason,  and  my  will  is  law ; 
my  advocate  is  power,  and  I  myself  am  judge. 
We  will,  however,  run  over  a  few  of  his  proposi- 
tions. 

To  excite  alarm,  he  begins  by  stating,  as  a  sin- 
gular and  comprehensive  truth,  that,  "  with  the 
"  exception  only  of  a  very  small  portion  of  the 
"  coastii'.g  trade  of  their  enemies,  not  a  mercan- 
"  tile  sail  of  any  description,  now  enters  or  clears 
"  from  tlieir  ports  in  any  part  of  the  globe,  but 
"  under  neutral  colours."  This  is  a  strong,  and 
we  believe,  a  true  statement.     The  strong  infer- 


48 


Miqr  may  hv  drawn,  that  no  nnitral  vrsscl  slioulif 
be  allowj'd  to  tiittr  or  sail  from  i\w  ports  of  their 
cniiny.  I'he  author,  indcrd,  chx's  not  draw  titt 
that  inf<'r(Mi(('.  lie  has  the  goo(hirss  to  coiiAiil' 
liinis(;lf  (for  tho  prrsont)  to  the  colonial  trade. 
But  i(  the  fact  ope'ratcs  on  the  (juestion,  it  p^oes  to 
the  lull  consequence.  The  ad\  antageto  France,  tho 
disadvantap^e  to  Kngland,  and  the  guilt  of  the 
neutral,  (if  guilt  there  be)  is  as  great,  in  supply- 
ing the  i)ro(liiee  of  the  United  States,  as  in  sup- 
plying the  produce  of  the  West-Indies.  Bread, 
beef,  and  pork,  are  certainly  more;  useful  to  the 
purposes  of  war,  than  sugar,  colVee,  and  cocoa. 
Aiul  if  the  finances  of  Franct;  be  the  object  in 
contemplation,  our  punhase  o^ y^'ww  and  brandy 
must  be  more  bcnef'cial  than  oiu' .s7//c  of  indigo 
and  cotton.  It  won  hi  indeed  be  another  new 
position  in  the  public  law,  that  a  commerce  of 
luxuries  with  the  belliicerent  is  forbidden,  but 
that  of  necessaries  permitted.  Pursuing  the 
same  inverse  ratio,  contraband,  no  longer  the 
subject  of  prize,  will  become  the  object  of  re- 
ward. 

The  author  complains  that  "  1  [amburg,  Alto- 
''  na,'  Tfibden,GottenVjiirgh,  and  Copenhagen,  are 
"  supplied  and  even  glutted,  with  the  produce 
"  of  the  We:,t-Indies,  and  the  fabrics  of  the  East, 
"  brought  from  the  prosperous  (-olonies  of  powers 


49 


*^  hostile  to  England."  Premising  that  we  know 
not  of  those  French,  Dutch,  and  Spanish  colo- 
nies, which  furnish  the  fahrics  of  the  East,  and 
believe  that  (with  exception  of  China)  the 
principal  nuinufacturing  countries  are  in  pos- 
session of  England  ;  we  take  the  liberty  to  recom- 
mend a  little  more  caution  in  the  next  edition  of 
War  in  Disguise.  Sweden,  Denmaik,  and  Ger- 
many, may  not  relish  a  doctrine  which  would 
subject  their  supplies  to  British  monopoly,  and 
oblige  them  to  pay  not  only  the  price,  but  the 
profit  and  duty,  which  Britain  may  think  fit  to 
impose.  We  Lomevvhat  doubt  whetlur  Russia 
would  find  her  account  in  such  an  arrangement. 

When  our  author,  in  the  same  querulous  strain, 
tells  us  that  the  looms  and  forges  of  Germany  are 
put  in  action  "  by  the  colonial  produce  of  the 
"  enemy,"  we  wish  to  know  whether  the  honest 
Germans  are  to  be  persuaded  to  make  common 
cause  with  England,  for  the  purpose  of  stopping 
their  own  looms  and  forges !  We  did  not  kuovr 
that  the  West-Indies  supplied  iron  to  German 
forges ;  but  we  know  that  our  cotton  may  be 
worked  as  well  in  German  as  in  British  looms. 
Perhaps,  in  pursuing  the  same  course  of  political 
justice,  our  cx])0rl  of  American  cotton  in  Ame- 
rican ships,  will  l)c  cuiitincd  by  British  power  to 
British  ports. 

Our  author  Irlls  us,  on  the  high  ajithority  of  the 


i; 


1 


ii 


i 
I 


I. , 


50 

French  emperor  himself^  "  that  Martinique  and 
"  Giiadaloupe  are  flourishing  so  much  beyond 
"  former  examples,  that  since  1789,  they  have 
"  actually  rloMblod  their  population."  And  this 
he  attributes  to  the  trade  we  carry  on  with  those 
colonies.  AVe  neither  dispute  the  fact  nor  the  in- 
ference :  nay,  we  venture  to  believe  that  Jamaica 
would  also  flourish  beyond  former  example,  if 
permitted  to  enjoy  a  free  trade  with  the  United 
States.  We  believe,  moreover,  that  the  Lritish 
cabinet  entertain  the  same  opinion,  and  support 
a  monopoly  injurious  to  the  colony  for  the  exclu- 
sive advantage  of  England,  in  pursuance  of  the 
sa>me  system  (whether  good  or  bad)  which  the 
French  had  adopted.  But  we  conclude,  from  the 
flourishing  state  of  Martinique  and  Guadaloupe, 
now  that  the  French  monopoly  is  destroyed,  that 
the  commerce  of  those  colonies  is  not,  as  former- 
ly, for  account  of  France ;  because  if  it  were, 
they  would  not  flourish  mo"e  now  than  they  did 
heretofore.  Hence  we  cor  sider  it  as  demonstrat- 
ed, by  the  very  conclusion  our  author  has  himself 
drawn,  that  our  flag  is  not,  as  he  pretends,  a 
mere  cover  of  belligerent  trade. 

He  ij5s  taken  pains  to  prove  that  a  commission 
to  cover  property,  is  more  advantageous  to  the 
neutral,  than  trading  on  his  own  account ;  and 
thence  he  deduces  a  presumption  that  such  neu- 
tral, ciAgaging  in  unaccustomed  trade,  carries  it 


51 


on  for  the  belligerent.     This,   like   every  other 
presumption,    is   to   be   weighed   by  the   prize 
court ;  and  we  can  safely  leave  it  to  their  consi- 
deration.    If,  however,  it  be  urged  in  justlnca" 
tion  of  orders  to  be  issued  by  the  government,  we 
are  bound  to  declare,  that,  in  our  conception,  the 
fact  is  diiTcrent,  and  will  support  the  adverac  prC'- 
sumption.     It  seems  to  us  an  act  of  idiocy  in  the 
belligerent,  to  give  more  for  covering  his  proper- 
ty than  the  profit  of  the  adventure.     This  would 
be  trading  to  a  certain  loss.     And,  however  light- 
ly our  author  may  treat  their  morals,  he  will  hard- 
ly charge  either  belligerents  or  neutrals  with  so 
great  a  mercantile  sin.     One  would  su|}pose  that 
this  subject,  falling  so  much  within  the  province 
of  common  arithmetic,  no  logic  would  be  needful 
to  show  that  men  will  not  prosecute  a  trade  that 
do-s  not  pay  commissions.     But  since  the  author, 
in  the  same  page,  asks  whence  our  merchants  liave 
derived  "  the  means  of  purchasing  the  costly  ex- 
**  ports  of  the  Iia\anna  and  other  Spanish  ports?" 
it  is  proper  to   inform  him,   that  our   capital  is 
greatly  increased  by  trading  honesllij  on  our  own 
account,  with  the  colonies  of  the  pov\ers  at  war, 
instead  of  accepting  t//jr/wwt?>7///,  a  covering  com- 
mission of  small  comparative  value:  that  the  ca- 
pital and  ind;'.stry  of  ^^merica  have  greatly  ex- 
tended her  credit ;  mo/e  especially  on   the  ex- 
change of  London;  and  that  British  capital  iinds 


5(i 


■  'U 


fci 


;,    ,K. 


a  valuable  employment  in  subserving  our  com- 
mercial enterprise.  If  he  will  have  the  goodness 
to  ask  well  informed  men  in  Europe,  they  will 
tell  him  that  for  half  a  century  the  commerce  of 
France  and  Spain  has  been  supported,  in  a  great 
degree,  by  Dutch  and  English  funds.  If  he  will 
read  the  parliamentary  debates,  for  the  last  dozen 
years,  he  will  see  repeated  assurances  given  by 
British  ministers,  that  the  French  merchants  have 
been  long  since  ruined  by  assignats,  requisitions, 
and  forced  loans  ;  that  the  Spaniards  are  wholly 
exhausted  by  military  expenses,  contributions, 
and  paper  currency,  and  that  the  Dutchmen's 
purses  have,  in  French  presses,  been  squeezed 
to  the  very  husks.  After  such  decisive  facts, 
vouched  from  such  high  authority,  we  must  be  par- 
doned for  expressing,  not  merely  surprise,  but 
astonishment,  that  any  man  in  England  should 
suppose  our  trade  with  the  French,  Spanish,  and 
Dutch  colonies,  is  supported  by  the  capital  of 
France,  Spain,  or  Holland. 

But  the  writer  of  War  in  Disguise,  after  toiling 
hard  to  show,  (what  we  venture  to  assure  him  is 
not  a  fd^f)  that  our  commerce  is  but  ostensibly 
neutral,  omes  forward,  in  page  102,  to  his  main 
object:  "  After  all  (says  he)  let  it  not  be  supposed 
"  that  fJie  important  conclusions  to  which  I  reasouy 
"  depend  on  the  fact,  that  the  trade  in  question  is 
'^  carried  on  chieflv,  or  in  some  decree,  on  account 


53 


m- 
irss 

ill 
eof 
reat 
will 
zen 
1  by 
lave 
ons, 


*  of  our  enemies.  Were  the  conlrary  conceded,  ye- 
**  ry  little,  if  any j  deduction  need  on  that  score  be 
"  made  from  the  sum  of  the  mischiefs  here  as- 
"  cribed  to  the  encroachments  of  the  neutral  flag." 
Thus  the  ground  of  right  is  completely  abandon- 
ed, and  the  question  is  confessedly  put  on  the 
ground  of  convenience.  We  enter  here  our  so- 
lemn protest,  onbehalf  of  ourselves,  of  other  neu- 
tral nations,  and  of  all  the  societies  of  civilized 
man  :  We  protest  against  the  violation  of  princi- 
ples laid  down  by  tiie  ablest  writers,  adopted  by 
the  wisest  princes,  and  sanctioned  by  the  consent 
of  ages  :  We  desire  it  may  be  distinctly  under- 
stood, that,  when  we  touch  this  argument  in  de- 
tail, we  do  not  in  the  least  or  for  a  moment  admit 
that  it  can  ever  be  a  proper  subject  of  deliberation 
with  honest  men.  No;  it  should  be  at  once  re- 
jected in  the  gross,  with  gener  ^  indignation. 
Since,  however,  all  men  are  not  honest,  we  hope 
for  pardon  in  attempting  to  show  that  the  argu- 
ments in  support  of  that  pernicious  doctrine,  are 
as  weak  as  they  are  criminal. 

In  his  l05th  page,  the  author  calls  his  reader's 
attention  "  to  a  single  and  highly  important  fact : 
"  the  produce  of  the  West-Indies  (says  he)  sells 
"  cheaper  in  our  enemy's  ports,  than  in  our  own." 
This  may  be  the  fact  of  a  moment,  arising  from 
some  accidental  excess  of  supply  beyond  the  de- 
mand, joined  to  a  ivant  of  capital  to  purchase  on 


1!  i;} 

pi 


I; 


n 


ii 


K:'. 


m 


It! 

:ii 


54 

speculation.  If  so,  it  proves  nothing.  It  may  al- 
so be  a  general  result  of  tliree  distinct  caiues  : 
1st,  Superior  cheapness  of  the  article  at  the  place 
of  purchase :  2d,  Superior  cheapness  of  transporta- 
tion to  the  place  of  sale  ;  and  ^d,  Inferior  profit 
taken  by  the  trader.  Thr  iirst  cause  has,  we  be- 
lieve, existed  for  a  long  period  antecedent  to  the 
present  war;  but  if  not,  it  goes  to  prove  that  the 
war  has  occasioned  distress  to  the  French  and 
Spanish  colonies,  which  could  not  be  wholly  al- 
leviated by  the  neutral  intercourse.  The  second 
and  third  causes,  merely  show  our  willingness  to 
work  for  a  moderate  compensation.  This  per-^ 
haps  is  the  great  grievance.  We  prevent  those 
immoderate  gains  which  might  be  made,  but  for 
our  competition.  To  remove  it,  the  commerce  of 
neutrals,  the  rights  of  neutrals,  and  the  public  law 
of  nations  must  be  destroyed.  Powers  of  Eu- 
rope, awake  !  America  is  to  be  plundered,  in  or- 
der that  a  tribute  may  be  raised  from  your  sub- 
jects, by  the  commercial  rapacity  of  Britain.  Is 
it  for  this  you  pour  out  the  blood  of  those  faithful 
subjects  in  her  cause  ? 

Another  of  our  crimes  is,  that  we  diminish  the 
profit  of  sugar  refiners,  arising,  he  says,  chiefly 
"  from  an  advance  (pending  the  process)  in  the 
"  prices  of  the  raw,  and  of  course  of  the  refined 
"  commodity."  In  ♦  aer  words,  we  by  our  in- 
dustry, diminish   the  benefits  which  that  useful 


55 

class  of  citizens  expect  from  their  monopolij.  Thus, 
by  disappointing  the  engrosser,  we  render  the  ar- 
ticle cheaper  to  the  general  consumption  of  Bri- 
tish subjects.  Our  rights,  therefore,  must  be  in- 
vaded, and  our  property  must  be  plundered,  that 
refined  sugar  may  become  dear  in  England. 
And  this  argument  is  addressed  to  the  good  sense 
of  EnGflishmen ! 

Having  thus  completed  the  list  of  grievances 
and  of  sufferings,  with  which  the  good  people  of 
England  are  afflicted,  he  proceeds  to  the  benefits 
which  accrue  to  their  enemies.  And  first,  says 
he,  "  the  hostile  treasuries  are  fed  by  the  same 
"  means,  with  a  copious  stream  of  revenue,  with- 
"  out  any  apparent  pressure  on  the  subject ;  a  re- 
"  venue  whi(;h  otherwise  >vould  be  cut  off"  by  the 
"  war,  or  even  turned  into  our  own  cofffers," 
How  a  revenue  could  be  turned  into  the  coff'ersof 
Britain,  by  leaving  the  articles  neutrals  now  ex- 
port, to  perish  in  the  colonies  of  her  enemies,  w^e 
are  not  so  happy  as  to  comprehend  or  conjecture. 
AVhether  the  weight  of  taxes  be  lessened  by  taking 
off*  only  the  apparent  pressure,  we  leave  to  be  de- 
termined by  those  who  prefer  appearances  to  re- 
alities. But  we  must  take  the  liberty  to  say,  that, 
in  our  humble  apprehension,  the  real  pressure  of 
taxes  can  best  be  borne  by  foregoing  the  con- 
sumption of  useless  luxuries.     We  never  have  be- 


M 


(! 


i:| 


(, 


'VI' ' 


r-'. 


if 


56 

lievcd,  notwithstanding  the  fashionable  opinioi)> 
that  power  is  the  appendage  of  trans-atlantic 
possessions.  We  never  have  believed,  that  mo- 
dern refinements  and  modern  delicacies, form  the 
strength  and  the  sinews  of  a  state ;  still  less,  that 
a  great  and  brave  nation  can  be  ruined  by  taking 
from  her  the  occasions  of  luxurious  extravagance. 
When  the  French  Emperor's  power  is  attributed 
to  an  interconrse  with  his  colonies,  by  the  inter- 
vention of  a  neutral  flag;  we  ask,  whether  it  was 
by  the  aid  of  colonies  that  Henry  the  fifth  wrested 
the  sceptre  of  France  from  the  gripe  of  her  feeble 
monarch  ?  Was  it  by  the  aid  of  colonies  that 
Elizabeth  destroyed  the  armada  ?  »v  as  it  by  the 
aid  of  colonies  that  Lewis  the  fourteenth  made 
Europe  tremble  ?  Did  the  power  of  Spain,  under 
Charles  the  fifth,  rest  on  colonies  ?  Have  those 
colonies,  now  so  flourishing,  added  (in  modern 
times)  a  single  nerve  to  Spanish  strength,  or  a 
single  ray  to  the  old  Spanish  glory  ?  Did  Peter 
the  great — did  the  immortal  Catharine — rely  on 
American  islands,  cultivated  by  African  slaves,  as 
the  base  of  their  colossal  dominion  ?  Or  was  it 
by  the  aid  of  colonial  produce,  that  Frederick 
bore  up  against  the  hostility  of  almost  all  Europe? 
Xo  :  it  was  by  genius  and  discipline,  not  by  sugar 
and  coffee,  that  he  went  triumphant  through  the 
seven  year<?'  w  ar.     How  weak  then  the  pretext. 


m 


opposed  to  history  and  experience,  that  the  pow- 
er of  France  is  dependent  on  a  trade  with  her  co- 
lonies: that  to  cnt  off  the  intercourse,  maintain- 
ed by  intervention  of  neutrals,  vvouhl  enreehle 
that  vast  emj)ire;  and,  therefore,  that  it  is  lawful 
to  pursue  the  doubtful  cousc(|ueiice  by  immedi- 
ate wrong.  Surely,  somev\hat  more  than  mere 
assertion  should  be  advanced,  not  to  justify,  that 
is  impossible,  but  to  palliate  such  enormity. 

When  it  is  asked  from  what  other  source  than 
the  continuance  of  his  colonial  trade,  the  French 
emperor  derives  his  treasure  ?  although  we  hold 
ourselves  not  obliged  to  answer,  because  in  fair 
argument  the  burthen  of  proof  lies  on  the  affirm- 
ant, we  will  assume  the  double  task  of  showing 
Jst,  some  causes  of  Napoleon's  power  ;  and,  2dly, 
that  it  does  not  depend  on  the  West-Indies.  The 
power  of  England,  under  Cromwell ;  of  France, 
under  Henry  Fourth ;  and  of  several  other  nations, 
indeed  of  nations  in  general,  when  emerging 
from  civil  war,  has  been,  and  ever  will  be,  a 
problem  of  diflicult  solution  to  counting-house 
politicians.  But  when  it  is  considered  that  the 
broad  surface  for  cultivation  remains ;  that  the 
reduction  of  private  fortunes  lessens  the  expense 
of  luxury  -,  that  the  conversion  of  tenants  into 
freeholders,  (by  confiscation  and  sale  of  large 
estates)  leaves  a  disposable  surplus  for  taxes  in 


H 


'1 


58 


w 


lii. 


the  hands  of  the  cultivator;  that  the  very  (le«trnc- 
tioii  of  aged  and  intirni  persons,  (by  the  cr  t'lty 
and  distress  of  civil  convulsions)  lessens  the  usual 
ineunihrance  on  [)roductive  labour  ;  that  men 
inured  to  toil  and  accustomed  to  privations,  can 
spare  the  fruit  of  their  industry  with  less  incon- 
venience than  such  as  have  been  habituated  to 
ease  and  enjoyment ;  and  that,  in  times  of  di^or- 
tler  and  violence,  the  spirit,  genius,  talents,  and 
energies,  of  a  nation,  are  called  into  action  ;  and 
the  proper  characters  thereby  designated  to  till  the 
various  departments  of  state,  war,  and  finance, 
we  shall  no  longer  be  surprised  that  a  country  so 
circumstanced,  should  yield,  under  the  pressure 
of  military  govenunent,  more  elVectual  revenue 
than  can  (in  the  usual  course  of  thmgs)  be  drawn 
from  rich  and  luxurious  nations.  1  he  numeric 
account  may  indeed  be  less,  but  the  substantial 
effect  will  be  greater :  labour  will  be  cheaper : 
and  it  is  not  guineas  in  bank,  but  men  in  aims, 
which  form  the  power ;  and,  therefore,  the  real 
wealth  of  a  nation.  Thus  we  fmd  in  the  very  cir- 
cumstances relied  on  by  some,  to  prove  that 
France  was  tottering  on  the  verge  of  ruin,  a  part 
of  that  resource  which  her  sovereign  employs  vv  ith 
such  dreadful  ability.  To  this  may  be  added  the 
contributions  drawn  from  other  countries,  and 
that  pillage  which  has  rendered  Europe  more  pro- 


r»[) 


ditctive  to  the  FrcMicli,  tliaii  even  India  itself  to 
tlif  Ur  tisli  annics.  Conctiviiig  that  we  have  lul- 
iillfd  oiir  first  tngagrnunt,  wv  \uovvvd  to  sliow, 
secondly,  tliat  the  power  et*  France  does  not  de- 
pend on  a  (!(»mnierce  with  tlie  West-Indies.  To 
do  this,  we  call  to  our  reader's  recollection,  a 
simple,  well-known  I'act.  St.  Domingo,  alone 
more  product i\e  than  all  the  other  French  colo- 
nies put  together,  is  completely  lost.  If,  there- 
fore, the  articles  of  colonial  produce  were  the 
basis  of  French  power,  it  would,  instead  of  being 
inci eased  so  as  lo  excite  alarm,  be  diniinished  by 
at  least  one  half.  AV'e  appeal  to  the  candour  of 
impartial  Fnglislunen,  whether  our  reasoning,  on 
this  point,  or  that  of  our  adversary,  be  most  con- 
clusive. But  even  admitting,  that  what  is  so 
clearly  demonstrated  were  merely  a  matter  of 
doubt,  we  ask  whether  conclusions  from  doubtful 
premises  authorize  the  violation  of  unquestion- 
able right  ? 

Our  author  tells  us,  "  a  great  part  of  the  Span- 
"  ish  treasure  shipped  from  South-America,  may 
"  be  reasonabhi  regarded  as  nett  revenue,  passing 
**  on  the  King's  account."  We  know  not,  neither 
shall  we  inquire,  whether  this  presumption  be 
well  or  ill  founded,  but  will  suppose  the  treasure 
in  question  to  be  the  return  for  bills  of  exchange 
drawn  by  the  Spanish  treasury  on  their  agents  in 


f)() 


■ii 


m 


I 


ii.; 


Mnxico,  nn«l  sold  tt)  ncntnils.  This,  wo  pre- 
sume, is  takinpf  ji  cnsc  as  strong-  ns  any  the  author 
fould  have  contcrnplalcMl ;  and  we  jircsume  hr 
uoidd  not  hesitate  to  de(  hire,  not  ordy  that  <lol- 
lars  paid  on  those  hills  should  he  taken  iVoni  the 
neutral,  as  lawful  prize,  in  the  voyaiifc  from  La 
Vera  Cruz  to  New -York,  hut  that  it'  they  should 
be  landed  at  New-York,  anil  exported  to  Mam- 
burg  afterwards,  they  should  still  be  regarded  as 
going  towards  their  orignud  deslnuition  ;  and  stdl 
be  law  lul  prize.  Admitting  this  doctrine,  lor  a  mo- 
ment, let  us  look  lor  a  similar  case.  During  the 
last  war,  it  was  common  tor  niereliants  in  Ham- 
burg to  purchase  bills  drawn  by  agents  ol"  the 
British  government  for  public  account,  to  bring 
from  England  the  dollars  raised  from  the  pay- 
ment of  those  bills,  to  employ  them  in  the  pur- 
chase of  similar  bills,  and  so  on,  as  long  as  the 
course  of  exchange  would  leave  a  profit.  The 
same  practice,  under  similar  circumstances,  w  ouid 
doubtless  take  place  in  the  present  or  any  other 
war.  Would  the  dollars  on  their  voyage  from 
England  to  Hamburg,  be  lawful  prize  ?  Will 
Britain  insist  on  the  legality  of  such  capture  ?  Or, 
to  go  a  little  farther;  if  the  Hamburg  merchant 
should  ship  the  dollars  to  India,  would  it  still  be 
law  ful  prize  ?  Still  infected  by  the  original  taint  ? 
If  the  enemy  of  Britain  could  take  dollars,  so  cir- 


li' 


61 


cumstancod,  ns  InvvOil  pri-^o,  when  poincr  Trom 
lljimbiir^  hysoa,  might  he  not  ns  juHily  take  them 
in  any  other  phice  where  he  has  hiwful  dominion  ? 
And  has  he  not  ihe  right  necessarily  incirhnt,  and 
fully  e^^tahlislicd  hy  the  eonnnon  procedure  in 
prize  causes,  to  take  any  dollars  he  may  meet 
with,  and  call  on  tlw  neutral  owner  to  show  how 
they  came  into  his  ])()ssession  ?  Let  us  take  an- 
other ease.  There  is  in  peace,  (and  if  re()ort  say 
true,  there  is  also  in  war,)  a  contraband  trade  be- 
tween the  Spanish  colonies  and  Jamaica.  The 
dollars,  when  going  from  those  colonies,  are  un- 
fpK'stionably  liable  to  confiscation  ;  and  it  so  hap- 
pens, that  each  of  them  has  a  date  vvhich  would 
eitluM'  prove  incontestibly,  or  at  least  raise  the 
most  violent  presmnption,  that  they  had  goiu;  di- 
rect from  the  mines  to  Jamaica:  would  S[jain,  in 
time  of  full  peace,  be  perniitteil  to  take  Biitisli 
vessels  leaving  the  port  of  Kingston,  and  coiitis- 
cate  dollars  lound  on  board,  unless  the  owner 
could  show  they  were  not  the  Iruit  of  conliabaiid 
trade.?  That  they  were  not  imported  with  a  view 
to  re-exportation } 

Among  the  heinous  crimes  this  author  has 
charged  to  neutral  account,  one  is,  that  by  becom- 
ing the  carriers  for  France,  French  ships  are  un- 
em[)loyed  ;  wherefore  the  Emperor  can  obtain 
them  on  easy  terms  of  freight,  when  he   wants 


rl 


()2 


II  I' 


^;■ 


i   I 


'j?i 


i 


f;i 


tlicin  for  liis  transport  service.  This  is,  iii<lr(Ml,  an 
iiiilx  ard-of  onrncc  ;  and  the  more  injurious,  as 
mil  larv  eonscriptions,  impressment  of  seamen, 
and  putt int;  of  property  in  requisition,  are  things 
wholly  unknown  in  France. 

The  author  also  conjplains,  that  "  by  the  lieen- 
"  tions  use  ol"  neutral  liai^s,  the  Jiiemy  is  enahled 
*'  to  employ  his  whole  military  marine  in  purposes 
"  of  ollensi\(' war."  It  is  unquestionable,  that  ho 
who  has  neither  connneree  nor  colonies  to  pro- 
tect, is  not  called  on  to  defend  his  c«>lonies  und 
oonniieree  :  an  additional  proof,  hy  the?  way,  that 
these  distant  pus.sessions  ratiier  diminii^h  than  in- 
crease the  power  of  a  nation.  Lc^t  us,  in  tlu;  true 
spirit  of  our  author's  reasoning,  suppose  that  Bri- 
tain, exercising?  the  power  attributed  to  her  by 
the  learned  Judi^e,  should  take  all  the  French,  Spa- 
nish, a>id  Dutch  colonies  ;  this  would  but  so  much 
the  m(>r(^  conc(  ntrate  their  ujaritime  power  and 
enable  tliem  "  to  enqdoy  their  whole  military 
**  marine  in  ()ur|)oses  of  otVensive  war."  It  fol- 
lows, therefore,  that  her  expensive  exj)editions  to 
the  East  and  to  tlie  West,  would,  if  crowned  with 
all  the  success  her  fondest  wish  might  desire,  only 
tend  to  strengthen  her  enemies.  Already  she 
bends  under  the  weight  of  her  vast  dominion,  and 
perhaps  (at  no  distant  period)  may  wish,  like  the 
wise  Augustus,  to  circumscribe  her  empire  ;    but 


I 


Gt} 


wMIp  Ikt  j?ovfrnm(Mit  labtmrs,  by  cxtrndinp  it,  to 
produri'  tin;  evil  roiuplaincd  of,  surely  vvc  nuiy  bo 
IMTinittcd  to  carry  on  our  lawful  trado,  even  tliou^li 
it  sbould  in  sonir  small  dri^rre  ('oiitril)utt'  to  tho 
unavoidable  result  oftbeir  own  pursuits. 

Anotber  (barge  brougbt  against  neutrals,  as 
being  a  (onsequrnei!  of  tbeir  trade,  is,  tbat,  not- 
witbstanding  those  f]((*ts,  wbicli  cover  tlu;  ocean, 
s«/ine  little  privateers  in  the  West-Indies,  now  and 
tlien  make  prixe  of  a  Hi  itisb  .sbip.  Tbc  argument 
staiuls  tbus:  Sucb  is  the  power  of  tbe  BritiKb  ma- 
rine, tbat  if  ber  enemies  sbould  fit  out  mcrrhant 
ve.ss<  Is  they  would  surely  be  taken:  tlu'refore, 
tbey  do  not  fit  out  nwrchuntmcn  :  tbey  are  ohlig- 
ed  to  employ  their  seamen :  therefore  tbey  tit 
out  privaf(rr\- :  if  neutrals  did  not  trade  witb 
thenj,  they  would  lit  out  merchantmen  to  be 
certainl}!  taken :  if  tbey  fitted  out  m(3rcbautmcii 
to  be  taken,  tbey  could  not  fit  out  privateers  to 
take  other  folks :  therefore,  it  is  tbe  fault  of  neu- 
trals, that  tbey  fit  out  privateers :  moreover,  // 
tbe  Britisb  cruisers  bad  a  cbance  to  make  rich 
prizes,  they  might  be  more  alert:  //'tbey  were 
more  alert,  tbey  might  catcb  those  privateers — 
those  privateers  are  scarce  worth  catcbing: 
therefore,  tbe  British  cruizers  don't  look  after 
them:  therefore,  those  privateers>  not  being  hin- 
dered, now  and  tben  make  a  prize  :  tberefore  it  is 


l'^ 


.:    ( 


mi 


hf 


f:f 


u 


m 


04 


tlie  fault  of  the  neutrals,  that  such  ])rizes  are  made : 
Ihis  reasoning  is  conclusive,  therefore  the  conse- 
quences draw  '1  from  it  are  self-evident.     The  neu- 
trals, in  carr^MUg-  on  their  commerce,  could  have 
had  no  view  to  their  own  advantage,  which  is  only 
a  remote  and  indirect  consequence  :  therefore,  they 
must  ha\e  been  moved  by  u  view  to  the  aforesaid 
fitting  oiit  of  privateers,  which  is  a  necessary  and 
direct  consetjueiice.     To  act  with  such  a  iiostilc 
intention,  is  to  take  ]>art  in  the  war :  to  take  part 
in  the  war,  exposes  to  confiscation:  therefore,  the 
neutrals  are  justly  liable  to  confiscation. — It  n)ight 
he  proper  to  add,  like  lord  Peter  in  the  tale  of  a 
tub,  this  is  clear  reasoning,  and  may  you  all  be 
d — d  for  a  pack  of  rascals,  if  you  preterul  to  dis- 
pute the  conclusion. 

Another  great  injury  com[)lained  of,  is,  that  no 
prizes  can  be  made  on  the  enemy,  "  the  only 
means  by  which  a  victorious  admiral,  when 
"  raised,  as  a  reward  for  his  illustrious  actions,  to 
"  civil  and  hereditary  honours,  can  hope  to  sup- 
"  port  his  well-earned  rank,  and  provide  for  an 
"  ennobled  ])osterity:"  that  the  attempt  to  con- 
f\sr£de  neutrals,  as  the  law  now  stands,  is  gene- 
rally a  fruitless  task,  and  at  any  rate  attended 
with  tedious  litigation,  "  an  evil  peculiarly  un- 
"  pleasant  to  the  ardent  mind  of  a  sailor :"  that 
no  captures,  except  those  founded  on  the  breach 


(( 


6^ 


Re: 

se- 

lou- 

lave 


of  a  blockade,  "which  are  of  small  value,"  can 
now  be  safely  relied  on  :  that  thij  is  a  great  dis- 
couragement to  engaging  in  the  sea  service :  and 
therefore,  that  this  valuable  class  of  men  "  ought 
"  not  to  be  shut  out  from  their  ancient  advan- 
"  tages,  or  be  jostled  by  every  neutral,  in  pursuit 
"  of  their  lawful  game,  and  so  sit  down  m  pover- 
"  ty  at  the  peace."  Alas  !  poor  Britain  !  Having 
destroyed  the  commerce  of  her  enemies,  she  must 
weep,  like  poor  Alexander,  because  there  is  no 
new  world  to  conquer  !  The  Barbary  powers, 
when  they  have  hunted  down  all  the  game  of  one 
christian  nation,  make  peace  and  go  to  vvar  with 
another,  in  pursuit  of  fresh  game.  These  Barba- 
rians have  the  candour  to  avow  that  prudent  cause 
of  peace,  and  this  Jionourable  motive  to  war.  They 
have  also  the  good  faith  to  disclaim  the  law  of  na- 
tions, which  they  term,  in  derision,  our  Christian 
law.  In  the  new  shape  the  war  has  now  put  on, 
the  kind  sympathy  of  our  author  will,  we  pre- 
sume, be  extended  from  the  sufferings  of  seamen 
to  those  of  their  brethren  in  the  land  service. 
With  the  same  mild  and  gentle  temper,  from  the 
same  charitable  and  patriotic  considerations,  and 
in  the  saip.e  course  of  just  and  honourable  argu- 
ment, he  will  doubtless  excite  the  British  soldiers 
in  Germany,  to  r  \  indiscriminate  plunder  of  friend 
and  foe. 


1 

m 


: '  '-A 


'■if    ■ 


'If'" 


^i/f- 


66 

Another  sore  evil  under  the  sun,  is,  that  from  a 
want  of  prey,  the  business  of  privateering  has 
been  discouraged.  I'his  mild  species  of  warfare, 
whose  beginning  is  benevolence,  and  whose  end 
is  virtue,  has  decayed  ;  but  from  no  want  of  mo- 
ral principle.  Good  men  are  still  willing  to  seek 
wealth,  by  the  plunder  and  ruin  of  industrious 
families ;  but  their  laudal)lc  zeal  has  expired,  from 
the  mere  want  of  objects  on  which  it  might  be 
displayed !  True  it  is,  that  seamen  who  might 
have  been  engaged  in  this  gentle  occupation,  are 
now  employed  in  merchant  vessels,  or  public  ships 
of  war.  But  the  nation  loses  one  inestimable 
advantage.  The  liberal  use  made  of  the  means  of 
war  by  men  whose  native  energies  had  never 
been  repressed  by  the  pedantry  of  education,  and 
who,  in  this  pursuit  of  human  game,  were  libe- 
rated from  the  restraints  of  law,  used  formerly  to 
furnish  occasions  for  the  exercise  of  diplomatic 
skill.  Thus  the  genius  of  statesmen  was  display- 
ed, matter  was  furnished  for  conversation  to  the 
various  coffee-houses  of  the  metropolis,  and,  above 
all,  the  nation  could  easily  be  embroiled  with  her 
neighbours,  so  as  to  multiply  the  chances  of  pro- 
viding for  ennobled  posterity  of  victorious  admi- 
rals ! 

The  increase  of  American  shippuig,  though  the 
last,  is  not  the  least  of  those  evils  our  author  com- 


67 


Ima 

has 

I'are, 

end 


i 


plains  of.  America  is  growing  into  greatness,  and 
the  war  seems  favouraf>le  to  her  prosperity.  That 
it  is  so  in  reality,  may  be  doubted,  without  incur- 
ring the  charge  of  seepticism ;  but  certainly  it 
has  that  appearance ;  an  appearance  alarming  to 
those  who  would  grasp  at  all  trade,  while  com- 
plaining that,  for  the  protection  of  what  they  al- 
ready possess,  the  navy  of  Britain  must  be  spread 
over  every  sea.  To  check  this  envied  prosperity 
of  America,  blooming  on  the  general  felicity  of 
mankind,  it  is  proposed  to  make  war  ;  not  in  dis- 
guise, but  open  and  flagrant,  as  it  is  unprovoked 
and  unjust.  And  in  order  that  a  conduct  so  con- 
temptuous of  the  mora!  sense,  may  want  no  cir- 
cumstance of  insult,  not  merely  to  the  United 
States  of  America,  but  to  every  Sovereign  in  Eu- 
rope, this  war  is  now  prompted,  and  is  hereafter 
to  be  defended,  on  the  principle  that  Great-Bri- 
tain can  in  no  other  way  fasten  on  the  necks  of 
other  nations,  the  yoke  of  her  commercial  mono- 
poly. 

But  our  author  would  fain  justify  the  conduct 
he  has  recommended,  and  to  that  elfect,  assuming 
the  thing  to  be  proved,  (viz.  the  validity  of  his 
supposed  rule,)  he  says,  "  If  I  should  dictate  to  a 
neighbour,  that  in  crossing  a  certain,field  which 
lay  between  our  respective  tenements,  he  and 
"  ins  servants  should  confine  themselves  to  a  cer- 
tain path  which  I  had  marked  out  for  the  purpose, 


(( 


(C 


a 


11 


1 1'' 


I'll 

•ill 


N 


n 


1  f.r 


,)•-;.      1 


i:  III 


If.; 


i 


68 

"  and  if  he  should  for  years  comply  with  the  re- 
"  striction,  or  submit  to  he  treated  as  a  trespasser 
"  whenever  he  deviated  from  it ;  I  might  consist' 
"  entlif  enough,  if  I  found  the  passage  a  nuisance, 
"  shut  it  u/)  altogether :  hut  it  would  bo  grossly 
"  inconsistent  in  him  to  deny  my  right  to  the  field, 
"  and  pretend  it  was  common  land."  The  reader 
will  observe,  that  his  right  to  the  field  is  exactly 
the  thing  in  controversy.  If  indeed  the  right  were 
his,  he  might  consistently  shut  it  up.  But  if  it 
were  a  piece  of  common  land,  and  if,  to  avoid  the 
assaults  of  a  quarrelsome  neighbour,  I  should  for 
a  while  travel  over  it  by  the  narrow  path  he  had 
prescribed  ;  and  if,  presuming  on  my  pusillanimi- 
ty, he  should  shut  up  that  narrow  path,  might  I 
not  lawfully  remove  the  obstruction,  and  call  the 
neighbourhoo^d  to  my  assistance  r  The  sea  is  a 
common  right  to  all  nations,  and  the  right  to  trade 
is  equally  common.  Neither  the  ocean,  nor  the 
commerce  borne  on  its  bosom,  can  be  considered 
as  the  private  property  of  any  6ne  nation  :  still 
less,  will  quaint  allusions  support  extravagant 
claims. 

The  aullior  has  more  semblance  of  reason, 
wlicn  he  says,  **  it  would  be  a  most  extraordinary 
"  and  unprecedented  situation  for  two  friendly 
*'  powers  to  stand  in,  if  the  one  had  a  right  to  any 
*'  thing  whicu  is  destructible  to  the  other."  Here 
it  is  assumed,  that  one   friendly  power  cannot 


69 


justly  do  what  is  destructive  to  another;  a  posi- 
tion wliich  must  at  jiny  rate  he  so  qualified  as  to 
reach  only  cases  oi'  direct  and  evident  destruction. 
In  such  cases,  the  duty  of  self-preservation  gives 
rights,  founded  on  necessity,  which  we  will  pre- 
sently notice:  but  these  cannot  arise  from  the 
mere  apprehension  of  remote  and  contingent  inju- 
ry. The  power  of  Venice,  founded  on  her  lu- 
crative trade  to  Asia,  was  destroyed  by  Gama's 
discovery  of  the  Cape  of  Good  Hope ;  the  com- 
merce of  India  was  thereby  turned  into  a  new 
track,  and  wholly  lost  to  that  republic.  But  if 
Venice  had  insisted  that  all  nations  should  forgo 
the  benefits  to  be  derived  from  that  discovery,  be- 
cause of  the  injury  she  might  thereby  sustain,  the 
pretence  would  have  been  considered  as  equally 
insolent  and  ridiculous.  Even  in  the  limited 
sense  of  the  above  position,  it  admits  of  excep- 
tions. If  my  friend  puts  himself  in  a  situation 
where  the  exercise  of  my  perfect  right,  though 
injurious,  or  even  destructive  to  him,  is,  never- 
theless, essential  to  my  own  preservation,  he  can- 
not expect  that,  to  save  him,  I  should  sacrifice 
myfelf.  But  our  author,  after  laying  down  his 
maxim,  instead  of  applying  it  to  the  extreme 
case  on  which  it  was  predicated,  viz.  national  de- 
struction, takes  up  a  different  and  inferior  case, 
viz.  the  ruining  his  hopes  in  the  war,  and  giving 
his  enemy  a  superiority  at  sea,  which  may  render 


Hi  i 


.'■  \ 


H' 


iit 


m 


England  a  province  of  France.     If  then  we  take 
the  rule,  and   the  application  of  it  together,  it 
would  follow,  that  a  neutral  must  forego  the  exer- 
cise "f  nis  perfect  right,  whenever,  in  the  opinion 
of  a  belligerent,  it  w\ll  rain  his  hopesy  or  give  to 
his  enemy  a  superiority  which  mai/  eventuate  in 
conquest.     And  from  this  conclusion  he  goes  to 
another  conclusion,  which  certainly  does  not  fol- 
low, viz.  that  if  the  neutral  will  not,  in  subservi- 
ence to   the  belligerent's   apprehensions,  forego 
the  exercise  of  a  perfect   right,  the  belligeient 
may  lawfully   seize  and  condemn  his  property. 
Thus  he  would  make,  not  the  necessity,  but  the 
apprehension  of  a  belligerent,  equivalent  to  the 
guilt  of  a  neutral.     That  necessity  gives  rights,  is 
certain;  but  these  rights  have  their  limits,  as  well 
as  their  foundation,   in  reason.     Necessitv  will 
authorize  whatever  will  be  needful  for  self-preser- 
vation ;  but  no  more.     The  belligerent,  therelbre, 
may  lawfully  take  goods  going  to  his  enemy,  in 
the  course  of  a  lawful  trade,  provided  they  be  ei- 
ther necessary  for  his  own  defence  and  existence, 
or  that,  under  existing  circumstances,  it  is  dan- 
gerous to  him  that  they  should  reach  their  desti- 
nation.    But  this  right,  resulting  from   the  un- 
questionable right  of  self-preservation,  can  by  no 
means  dispense  with  the  duties  of  good  faith  and 
justice.     These  bind  him,  while  pursuing  his  ene- 
my, not  to  injure  his  friend :  He  must,  therefore^ 


71 


ike 

it 

:er- 

tion 

to 

in 

to 

f'ol- 


K  he  take  such  goods,  pay  for  them  the  highest 
price,  with  the  charges  resulting  from  capture  and 
detention.  Under  this  restriction,  the  neutral 
may  repose  some  confidence  in  the  reasoning  of  a 
belligerent  on  his  own  danger;  for  it  is  not  to  be 
supposeci  that  he  would  wantonly  exercise  an  ex- 
pensive right.  Having  thus  shown  how  far  a  bel- 
ligerent may  go,  under  the  plea  of  necessity,  let 
us  suppose  the  doctrine  contended  for,  by  the  au- 
thor of  War  in  Disguise,  to  be  adopted  into  the 
law  of  nations,  and  trace  the  consequence.  May 
not  the  French  Emperor  assert,  that  the  wealth 
and  power  of  Britain  are  avowedly  founded  on 
commerce  ;  that  a  great  and  essential  part  of  that 
commerce  can,  in  time  of  war,  be  carried  on  by 
neutrals  alone;  that  such  commerce,  therefore, 
contributing  manifestly  and  directly  to  the  power 
of  his  foe,  is  ruinous  to  his  hopes  in  the  war; 
and  that,  enabling  England  to  subsidize  continen- 
tal powers,  it  may  eventually  give  her,  on  land, 
the  same  superiority  which  she  actually  enjoys  at 
sea.?  It  cannot  be  denied  that  this  reasoning  is 
as  conclusive,  at  least,  as  that  of  the  pamphlet 
under  consideration ;  neither  can  it  be  denied 
that  one  of  the  belligerents  has  an  equal  right 
with  his  adversary  to  reason  about  his  own  affairs. 
If  then  lucrative  rights  are  to  accrue  from  the  ap- 
prehension of  remote  and  eventual  danger,  what 
shall  prevent  him  from  putting  in  his  claim  ?     In 


!'!• 


r; 


»*( 


Um 


i   =! 


H:'^1 


'^     ■' 


ii  ; 


I: 
'I 


78 

his  high  station,  an  honourable  pride  may  disdain 
claims  founded  in  the  avowal  of  fear  ;  but,  sliould 
he  descend  to  such  abuse  of  argument,  would  he 
not  go  to  his  conclusions  with  force  and  fairness, 
equal  at  least,  to  what  his  opponent  can  display  ? 
Our  author,  after  much  of  inferior  matter, 
which  we  will  not  notice,  because  it  would  be 
tedious,  and  because  it  dissolves  and  vanishes  on 
the  application  of  sound  piinciples,  tells  us  at 
last :  "  after  all  that  has  been  or  can  be  said,  on 
"  this  important  subject,  one  plain  question  will 
"  probably  be  felt  decisive  by  every  equitable 
"  mind.  Quo  animo  ?  With  what  intention  did 
"  the  enemy  open  the  ports  of  his  colonies  to  fo- 
"  reign  flags  ?"  To  this  plain  question,  we  make 
as  plain  an  answer — the  answer  which  our  author 
himself  would  dictate.  We  verily  believe  it  was 
not  done  out  of  any  regard  for  us,  but  solely  with 
a  view  to  his  own  interest  and  advantage.  And 
what  then  ?  Must  I,  to  defend  my  right,  prove 
that  your  enemy  was  actuated  by  pure  love  and 
kindness  towards  me  ?  Since  when,  have  states 
been  governed  by  the  dictates  of  a  stark-naked 
benevolence  ?  What  sort  of  proof  is  expected  ? 
What  semblance  of  proof  can  be  given,  that  a  so- 
vereign has  absurdly  neglected  the  interest  of  his 
own  subjects,  to  promote  that  of  a  stranger  ?  In 
the  common  walks  of  life,  we  sometimes  meet 
with  ill-natured  men,  who  are  constantly  cavilling 


73 


at  the  conduct  of  others,  and  assign  criminal  mo- 
tives to  innocent  or  laudable  actions.  Such  miser- 
able motive-mongers  are  generally  despised  and 
detested ;  but  here  that  hateful,  contemptible, 
captious  temper,  is  recommended  as  the  standard 
of  national  justice — if,  indeed,  it  be  not  a  pollu- 
tion of  the  sacred  name  of  justice,  even  to  mention 
the  word  in  connexion  with  a  proposal  so  enor- 
mously flagitious  ;  with  the  deliberate  plan  to  im- 
pute the  prudent  regard  of  one  for  his  own  inter- 
est, not  to  hiniy  but  to  anothery  as  guilt ;  to  punish 
it  as  guilt.  Here  is  a  system  audaciously  propos- 
ed to  the  world,  according  to  which,  a  neutral  (in 
pursuing  his  lawful  trade)  shall  be  held  not  only 
to  prove  that  he  was  himself  actuated  by  such  mo- 
tives as  a  belligerent  chooses  to  prescribe,  but 
also  to  answer  for  the  motives  of  an  adverse  bel- 
ligerent ;  a  system,  according  to  which,  if  it 
should  appear  only  probable,  that  such  bellige- 
rent had  not  been  either  foolish  or  mad,  but  had 
in  his  public  conduct  consulted  his  own  interest, 
the  property  of  a  neutral  is  to  be  sacrificed.  Such 
is  the  closing  argument,  and  such  as  it  is,  the 
writer  fails  not  to  triumph,  and  to  conclude, 
"  that  the  illegality  of  the  commerce  is  as  certain  as 
"  its  mischievous  tendency ;  that  to  engage  in  it 
"  is  to  interpose  in  the  war;  and  that  the  mer- 

K 


I 


U' 


^N 


I  :'. 


I  : 


H 


^8j. 


'r    i 


'^•11 


74 

"  chants  wlio  thuspfrossly  violate  the  Juties,  have 
**  no  claim  to  the  rights  of  neutrality." 

Having  thus,  l»y  his  sovereign  will,  stripped  the 
neutrals  of  their  rights,  he  calls  ii  ,  to  aid  his  argu- 
ment, the  ultimate  reason  of  kings.      He  would 
extend  tlie  horrors  of  war  to  regions  which  it  has 
not  yet  afllicted.     Ho  can  view  with  indifl'ercnce 
the  scenes  of  plunder  and  the  fields  of  blood  :  nor 
is  he  deterred  from  his  fell  purpose  by  the  com- 
punctious struggles  of  humanity.     Yet  even  in  the 
whirlwind  of  his  wrath,  though  reason  and  con- 
.seience  are  silent,  interest  more  viir''ant  whispers 
to  his  ear,  "  our  trade  might  be  mu.erially  injur- 
"  ed  by  a  war  with  the  neutral  powers."     Atten- 
tive to  that  voice,  and  obedient  to  its  monitions, 
he  consoles  himself  in  the  hope,  and  avows  the 
confidence,  that  a  contraband  trade  now  carried 
on  between  the  English  and  their  enemies,  may  be 
extended,  by  permissions  under  royal  authority, 
so  as  to  bring  to  British  havens  the  commodities 
now  transported  iii  neutral  ships,  and  vend  British 
manufactures  in  the  colonies  of  France  and  Spain. 
He  holds  out  this  resource,  at  once  to  calm  appre- 
hension and  stimulate  avidity.      He   excites  his 
countrymen  to  seek  in  plunder  an  immediate  pro- 
fit ;  and,  lest  they  should  be  deterred  by  a  view  of 
that  distress  to  which  their  manufacturing  towns 


r* 


he 


would  be  exposerl,  lie  shows  how  to  obviate  by 
jifiiilt  lliocorisequenre  of  folly.  Fearful,  however, 
that  some  timorous  conscience  might  catch  and 
spread  alarm — fearful  that  the  proud  integrity  of 
Enjjflaiul  should  revolt  at  counsels  which  lead  to 
crimes, — he  adds,  "  though  I  cannot  undertake  to 
"  dcfi'iidthe  consistency  oflicensingto  Britishsub- 
"  jects  a  trade  with  the  enemy  from  which  ue  claim 
"  a  right  to  exclude  neutral  nations,  yet,  should 
"  those  nations  attempt  to  compel  a  surrender  of 
"  that  important  right  by  cutting  olf  our  com- 
"  merce,  the  remedy  would  be  consistent  and  just." 
Thus  the  criminal  circle  is  complete ;  and  thus 
the  plan  becomes  perfect.  A  plan  not  more  pro- 
digal c  than  absurd,  and  which  would  be  ridicu- 
lous l)ut  for  its  atrocity.  Yet  in  the  moment  of 
proposing  this  complication  of  all  which  can  of- 
fend the  reason,  insult  the  pride,  or  alarm  the  con- 
science of  man,  he  makes  an  appeal  to  God. 
"  Let  (says  he)  our  humble  confidence  be  placed 
"'  in  him  at  whose  command  nations  and  empires 
"rise  and  fall,  flourish  and  decay."  Yes!  yes! 
The  fate  of  empire  is  in  the  hand  of  God :  he  will 
punisii  lur(^  olfending  nations,  and  has  wisely  or- 
dained tliat  the  violent  and  unjust  shall  be  the 
certifiers  of  their  own  destruction.  England  ! 
you  have  solicited  continental  aid  to  ward  oft' im- 


/  s 


!i 


'il 


I'i 


i 


pjiiding  dan.c^rr:  vonr  rnemy  has  declared  that 
his  war  is  ii  giMicral  intrrt-st:  that  it  is  wagt'd  to 
e8tal>lish  a  p^enerul  nurht:  that  you  are  tyrants  of 
the  sea,  and,  in  pur'Juit  of  crain,  violate  the  first 
principles oiiusiico.  IsUiis  iIk- liinpiuKCof truth? 
If  it  uc,  how  can  vou  ask  the  ;iid  ofniMii^  How 
can  you  supplicate  the  favour  of  God  ? 


i:' 


FINIS. 


h 


-:i 


The  first  cilition  of  WAR  IN  DISGUISE,  inSvo.  and  the  2d  edition, 
in  12mo.  fur  Snie,  wholesale  and  retail,  by  I.  RIL£y  ^  CO.  No.  1,  City- 
Hotel,  Broadway. 


tr 


ti 


i* 


•  i 


'.* 


:hat 
ito 
s  of 
first 
ith? 
low 


editioOi 

1,  City- 


